User talk:69.140.152.55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia 2 Moroonbook and Express Lanes AFC 3 Cleanup tmplates 4 Bell v. the State 5 Timberlake v. the State 6 Timberlake v. State 7 POV check 8 RE: Articles for creation 9 US Bill of Rights FAR 10 Welcome 11 RE: thanks 12 Permission to refactor? 13 How to Make a Chocolate Souffle 14 Thanks! 15 my error on DRV 16 Re: I don't know. 17 your note 18 Contributions 19 Re: feedback 20 Suicide edit 21 Account 22 BTW 23 Your edit to Boric acid 24 Science Discovery Center of Oneonta 25 boric acid 26 Dude . . . 27 Proposal 28 Thanks 29 User:150.101.105.201 30 Trivia 31 May 2008 32 Edit 33 Science Discovery Center of Oneonta 34 Limit of a function quick fail 35 White House Council on Environmental Quality (WP:AFC) 36 Copy edit tag 37 Re: ClueBot Examples 38 Moved 39 2007 VK184 and Torino scale contradiction fixed 40 Re:Parachuting 41 Re: technical question — How do you get creation date information from a .PDF? 42 Refactoring comments 43 RE: WikiProject Neurology + WikiProject Neuroscience 44 Citing sources 45 Do what you want 46 Sorry 47 June 2008 48 Mirror neuron

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Craigtalbert 10:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moroonbook and Express Lanes AFC

The reason for declining the maroonbook was that there was no secondary source. Only a primary source. The same organisation that produced the maroonbook also produced the reference used as a source. Although this is probably reliable I cannot tell if it's important enough to warrant an article. Normally university notes for students would not be important enough.

As a matter of clarification – the Harvard Law Review does not publish the Maroonbook. If I am not mistaken, they publish the Blue Book; if this is true, they are actually a competitor, in which case any favorable mention of the maroon book would have extra credibility. However, because I did not read the Harvard Law Review article that is cited as a source, I cannot say whether the content of the proposed AfC is supported by this source or not. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoey created a whole big block of the express Lanes redirects, but stopped for some reason. I checked using google to see if the name existed. In most cases the name had never been found by google, so I declined as a neologism - a new name not in use yet. In some cases the name was used for a different highway (in another state) then I declined it for verifyability reasons. In a couple of cases the name was used for that road, so I created the redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact of a name being used for a highway in a different state is an excellent reason for rejection. Thanks for watching out for it! 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tmplates

JUst type {{tone}} .. don't get fancy with subt etc. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 17:25 10 March 2008 (GMT).

[edit] Bell v. the State

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Bell v. the State was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Yngvarr (c) 09:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timberlake v. the State

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Timberlake v. the State was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Yngvarr (c) 09:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timberlake v. State

I created Timberlake v. State for you, but this is a DAB, so the it may be moved to (disambig) or something like that. I'll leave it as-is, and let someone more advanced than me decide that. Yngvarr (c) 09:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV check

It could be helpful if you would specify what you wish (specifically) to have checked for its neutrality in the lead paragraph of feminism. Please leave a note at Talk:feminism so that the points can be discussed--Cailil ^talk 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Heath v. Alabama was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia!Steve Crossin (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Articles for creation

When I find copyrighted content I remove it outright but Judicial opinions are not copyrightable (though you may be right about embedded copyrighted material, I'm not sure) : "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments."

My reason for using WP:NOT was because the format wasn’t encyclopedic not because the subject is not worthy of an article and in that case I guess you're right, I should've been more specific. I have expanded my reply there, should be fine now. Regards Acer (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and nice articles btw, most of the articles that are submitted at AFC don't even come close, keep it up :) Acer (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. article, I was just thinking how submitters feel when they see the "unsuitable for Wikipedia" caption; that's all.

And thanks for the compliment about the Heath v. Alabama article; I want to prove the proposition that unregistered editors can make worthwhile contributions. I would like to one day produce something that goes from Wikipedia:AFC directly to WP:GA; unfortunately, I have already caught some typos in the Heath article that I wrote. Maybe WP:AFC to WP:GAN in 30 days is a more attainable goal. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Bill of Rights FAR

You've still got an empty page at FAR; please see the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the edit that broke the copy of the {{V0.5}} template on the United States Bill of Rights talk page. I'll try to be more careful in the future. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I created the FAR page for you; I'm sorry for the trouble, I forgot IPs can't create pages. You still need to do the notifications per the instructions at WP:FAR (see another FAR for a sample). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the notifications. Do you have any advice on whom I should notify, besides whoever put the template on the article? I noticed that the edit history of the article in question is really long, so it may take a while for me to figure out whom to notify, but I'll start by using the tool referred to in the instructions.

By the way, please be sure to mark my WP:AFC submission as "approved."

Maybe one of these days I shall get around to registering but right now I want to prove the hypothesis that "unregistered editors can make significant contributions to Wikipedia." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructions are at WP:FAR as to who to notify; I don't work at that AFC page, and don't know what to do there. My concern is the FAR page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the "unregistered bit" is creating extra work for others :-) I'm unwatching now; my part was to get the listing corrected at FAR, can't help with the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hello! I've noticed that you have edited Wikipedia without logging in to an account. I'm happy that you've been contributing. However, I urge you to create an account. Here is a list of the benefits of having an account:

• You can create new pages
• You can use watchlists
• You can upload images
• You can keep your account from being unfairly blocked if you share an IP address
• You can use scripts to better fight annoying vandalism
• After four days, you can edit semi-protected pages
• After a while, you might be able to become an administrator

There are no cons to signing up for an account. In fact, you can find even more pros at the "why create an account" page! Signing up is completely free and you don't need to enter any personal information! Plus you can have a user page like mine! So, unless you can think of a con, sign up for an account right now! Mifter (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: thanks

No problem, you are probrably the best contributor I've seen over at AFC in terms of article quality. Remaining unregistered is fine, you're making the process look good :) Acer (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Permission to refactor?

On WP:DELREV you put a well-written comment, followed by a separate bulleted item endorse deletion. I request that these two be merged together. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'd prefer them separate. (One's a "comment", and one's a "vote".) For one thing, I've found that it allows for easier threading, should such occur. - jc37 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to Make a Chocolate Souffle

Thanks for the info. You might want to leave a comment on the AfD, as well. Corvus cornix_talk 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Already done. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kewl.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Seen you around recently on DRV and AfD and I think you've made some very good contributions to the project. Thanks for that! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment. By the way, please feel free to re-order the comments that I have posted on your talk page; to clarify chronological order, I'd suggest putting my "wow" section above your request for adminship because my (hopefully mild) criticism was issued after, not before, my praise. I still support the nom. by the way. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said there, I'm not worried about the flow -- because it's all time stamped someone can make sense of the order if it worries them. I n the mean time, your cookie is making me hungry and it's not even 10am here. happy friday! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my error on DRV

Thanks for warning me of my error. I have corrected it and deleted your question, as you asked on my talk page. I make this sort of error a lot of times, it's almost embarrasing for me. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No reliable independent source, not no reliable independient sources. (Fact that I am making comments like this indicates that it's getting late.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

hehe, it was also late when I was doing my double vote on Kremlin (bar). Thanks again for telling me. I stroke one of them and merged the two votes together. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I don't know.

I was having a very hard time judging 204.69.139.16's edits to Suicide when they came in such close succession. I reverted some edits because 1) they only appeared to be removing content, not relocating it, 2) the editor didn't provide an edit summary clarifying his motives, and 3) articles on such a sensitive topic are highly susceptible to vandalism and other forms of unconstructive edits. These edits could have appeared less confusing if the user had made one bulk edit rearranging content and entered reasoning in the edit summary field. Thanks, and happy editing! (Also, may I suggest creating an account? Wikipedia appreciates concerned and involved editors.) Ashleyy osaurus (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I see now 204.69.139.16's "response" on his talk page. You can see what I added; I hope it's okay that I also referred him to you with further questions (haha). I think my message may help. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Ashleyy osaurus (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wondered whether I needed to mention civility or not; however, I don't think it hurts anything in that message. I removed your IP though. Have a nice day... Ashleyy osaurus (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your note

just saw this note, will have to have a look tomorrow as it's gone 2:15 AM here and I need to get to bed. Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring it _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 06:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, have a good day/evening, whatever time it is wehre you are _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm actually in the Eastern time zone as well. Anyway, I see that a consensus is starting to form – provided that this is a true* consensus, this is good.

*unfortunately, there have been allegations of COI, POV and sockpuppetry relating to this article and its accompanying deletion discussion, so in order to ensure a valid vote, I'd like as many neutral editors to join the discussion as possible. If you haven't already, please read the article in question and this other article, then vote.

69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then I hope you had good weather, we're finally starting to get hints of Spring, woohoo. Consensus is a wonderful thing. The issue with this article is there's a solid nugget of good, unfortunately it's buried in surroundings of 'not so good' making it hard to find what's salvageable and good content. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a wonderful day today. By the way, never before have I spent hours contemplating a vote in a Wikipedia:Afd, but this case merits an even more careful review than those that appear on DRV. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some that truly tax the brain, I prefer those to the ones that go in endless circles. Progress is often made in the former _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions

Hi There

Just a thought but looking through your contriburtions I thought I should point out that you are clearly admin material and that if you were interested in this you might like to consider registering an account. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you. Maybe I will one day. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: feedback

Hi, thanks for your thoughts. Nominating an article for AfD inherently requires stating your case for why an article should be deleted. Possible reasons to delete an article include "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" and "Hoax articles", as well as articles that appear to be inflated autobiographies. This article falls somewhere within that realm (though I'm not sure exactly where), which is why I listed them as possibilities. The article has been maintained by a single, quite vocal editor who, after reviewing, continually skirts Wikipedia policy (violating 3RR, removing deletion tags inappropriately), defending this single article, and throws around inflammatory claims of anti-Semitism to defend their pet article when others point out its lack of verifiability. Am I of the point of view that the single published article by Gabriel Al-Amin describing how Hezbollah lost the war against Israel in 2006 is wrong? No, and I don't know enough about the subject to draw any conclusions on the matter, which is where POV policies apply. However, I am of the view that the author and their article fail to meet the minimum requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, and should therefore be removed. ← George ^[talk] 18:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is the website where the author appears to either work or have had their article first published. It's self described as a conservative news site, which is generally synonymous with the right wing of US politics. ← George ^[talk] 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem with using the website as a source is that it is POV, not that it is right-wing. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. My purpose for stating that the site is right wing is not to say that left wing or right wing is better or worse than the other, only that it is biased. Please don't infer any implied hidden statements out of it, any more than if I had written left wing. Just in case this confuses other editors, I'll go back and replace right wing with something that can't be interpreted the wrong way, such as non-neutral. ← George ^[talk] 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. And thank you for reminding me to vote. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide edit

Hi 152.55, thanks for reporting this. That is certainly very worrying. It appears that the IP address is located in Great Brittan. I would suggest leaving an understanding not on the user's talk page suggesting that s/he contact Samaritans. I can do this if you would like. I’m also placing a note about this on WP:AN/I. They will be able to take action on this much faster than would the foundation I believe. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you can do a better job than I. Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done --S.dedalus (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Account

You seem to have made several edits by now; you might want to consider signing up for an account. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe later. Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You won. I have opened an account; however, I shall prefer to continue editing while not logged in, and only use the account when necessary. In particular, I like the idea of having a second editor vet new articles, except for simple redirects. If and when two articles that I have written (such as this or this) are promoted to good article status, then I may switch to using the account regularly. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

I was the one who started that policy debate about suicide notes on Wikipedia. The proposal regrettably did not pass. However it may be time to try again. . . What do you think? --S.dedalus (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep it short and sweet. For the average user, the procedure should simply be to e-mail the Foundation and let the Foundation take care of it. The Foundation should setup a priority e-mail address for this purpose. Experts should participate more actively, to the extent allowed by their professional ethics; in addition, one or more experts should monitor the suicide article continuously for factual accuracy and to make sure that it doesn't get moved towards a pro-suicide POV, but avoid jumping to the conclusion that somebody boldly modifying the page is a vandal. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be wonderful, but unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The Foundation actually only consists of a very few paid employees who, as far as I can tell, mostly deal with public relations, fundraising, and planning issues. Emails to the foundation are unlikely to result in quick action, and will certainly not be dealt with by an expert. All editors in Wikipedia are volunteers and cannot be relayed on to maintain a vigilant watch over any article at all times, indeed unilateral action by such a person could violate our policy. I’m afraid the best we’re going to get would be a guideline which would at least insure that other editors who come across similar notes act as well as you did. There have been incidents in the past, especially on the reference desk, where editors responded by recommending “painless” methods. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, around here there is no way of knowing who is really an “expert” and who just says they are. There have been incidents where users claimed to be PhDs and were just high school kids, etc. S.dedalus (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't mean to imply that the Foundation or the community would appoint these experts; rather, something more in the nature that you should contact the Foundation only, but that experts should feel free to ignore the rule about contacting the foundation. What I don't want is some overzealous admin. just blocking the individual. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Boric acid

The point you are making with regard to the toxicity of Boric acid has already been mentioned in Talk:Boric acid, in the context of the book you are recommending. Merely adding a {{expand further}} tag, without a corresponding explanation in talk, probably won't get the result you hope for. What about following up the existing comment on the talk page? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I know of the reliability of the source in question, I do not actually know what it says about the subject, or in particular, whether it contradicts the content of the article or not. I know that good sources have already been reviewed carefully, but not all reliable sources would necessarily agree on something when answering questions that are quantitative, rather than qualitative, in nature. If somebody who has read it can contribute to the discussion, then by all means do so. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science Discovery Center of Oneonta

Hiya! I saw this, feel free to leave the tag if you think it warrants it. I know it needs to be expanded, which I intend to do but I wouldn't object to that tag in its current state. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would hate to see it go. But I re-tagged it in light of your answer ("verifiability") to the question about "What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and [w]hy?" Also, I am offering a source, but this is a mention in a local newspaper so I think that more are needed. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I think verifiability is addressed in that we know it's a real museum. I definitely agree that more are needed and while I think a merge might be likely, the title is a valid search term and should be preserved as a re-direct. I started a discussion to that effect on its talk page _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

At risk of getting into a revert war with myself ,  I changed {{notability}} to {{refimprove}}. Some topics, such as United States Supreme Court cases, are inherently notable.

Even if the science center is not inherently notable, WP:IAR states that we are supposed to put more priority on improving the encyclopædia than on satisfying Wikipedia policies. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And I tend to err on the side of museums=notable, I've saved a few and think this one can probably be saved. At least I hope so. I just tried to salvage Baton Rouge Gallery, we'll see if it wroks. Edit war with yourself, that sounds like the state of my brain today _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I might add that "it exists" is true, but that doesn't automatically make it "verifiable." In this case, its existence is verifiable, and even though its notability hasn't been established yet, let's give it some time. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By verifiable I meant it exists, we know it isn't a hoax. By "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." you're absolutely right. I'm going to link this discussion to the one at the museum's talk page to have it all in one place _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was talking about verifiability in the Wikipedia sense of "verifiability, not truth." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] boric acid

mea culpa...i mis-read the tag. you can restore it if you wish. --emerson7 15:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not your fault. Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dude . . .

Why not make a username, dude? Unschool (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Already did, but for the time being, will continue to edit using my IP – especially for articles that I've edited before. Thanks for asking though. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Apropos of the long distance call incident last night I have made a proposal here that you may find interesting. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What incident?

I am not sure what "long distance call incident" you are talking about. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, see here. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I found it just after I asked you. I've taken the liberty of removing my question from your talk page and pasting it here. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for noticing that. Rgoodermote  11:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:150.101.105.201

I would definitely make the last warning on User talk:150.101.105.201 a level 4 warning given that editors history. They have had enough recent warnings. NJGW (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see my edit summary for rationale. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. NJGW (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Requests for Adminship trivia

• There are no formal criteria for adminship, except that one must be a registered user,^[1] and must have support from at least a majority of WP:RFA voters.^[2] It is the job of bureaucrats to safeguard the integrity of the election process, and to interpret the results of voting.^[3] As Wikipedia is not a democracy, bureaucrats are given broad discretion in this regard,^[4] for example, by not counting votes from sockpuppets or trolls.^[5]
• Based on available data,^[6] no candidate with a support percentage of 97% or higher has ever been rejected for adminship.
• Based on available data,^[7] no candidate with a support percentage of 71% of lower has ever been approved for adminship.
• All other things being equal, provided that all votes are valid and no user votes more than once, one is likely to become an admin. if one receives 80% or more of the vote (as calculated by dividing the number of support votes by the sum of the number of support votes and the number of oppose votes), and is unlikely to become an admin. if one receives 74% or less of the vote.^[8]
• According to the Guide to Requests for Adminship, "Administrator status does not place you in an elevated status within Wikipedia . . . . Adminship is, in essence, janitorial duties for Wikipedia. (Hence the mop used to symbolise administratorship.)" 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

____________________________

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Background check, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Background check was changed by 69.140.152.55 (u) (t) deleting 15484 characters on 2008-05-23T02:12:32+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I reported the false positive _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You must have chosen a different option from the multiple-choice selection than the one that I chose.

Incidentally, I might add that I used to report suspected copyright violations without blanking the page in question, and was harshly criticized once by another editor for this.

What I might propose is perhaps a new version of the {{cv-unsure}} template that:

1. goes on an article's talk page like the current {{cv-unsure}} template, but
2. instead of saying "without a source this can not be definitively determined," it might say "there are one or more sources that contain text matching text this page, and it is not possible to determine, without further investigation, which is the original."

Although one might login and create this new template one's self, how would one setup the article history in order to give credit to the original template authors, in compliance with GFDL? (And generally, what's the proper way to cite authorship when copying text verbatim from one Wikipedia article to another?) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I know some times the copy of text can be achieved fia the merge process which maintains GFDL, but I don't know how that works. User:Hersfold is wonderful with templates, he really helped me with some for the museums project. He'd probably be the best person to ask. As far as copyvios, I tend to use {{copypaste}} or just re-write if I have time and can source it. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question above, one creates the template in one's userspace and then requests that a friendly template-knowledgeable admin move it into the proper area of project space by performing an administrative move that retains the history. Hersfold can probably help you, and there are a few others who are also very good at these things. Hope that helps. Risker (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Perhaps the editor means he hopes User:Sum1 reads this? I don’t know. Looks like a vandal to me. His talk page certainly looks like it. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science Discovery Center of Oneonta

Hi, not sure you're watching the page so I figured I'd leave you the message here. I removed the source you had in the see-also section because it appears that he received the grant for work unrelated to the science center. If I'm wrong, please feel free to re-add it. The link above is a direct link to the article, not password protected. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I had read the article, and offered it only for purposes of establishing importance or notability; i.e., that the science center is worthy of inclusion. You are right that as far as you or I can tell, the grant is for work unrelated to the science center. I hope you are able to find sources that better establish notability, as there are (I know this is a relatively weak argument) a lot of topics in this encyclopædia that are less important. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Noroton found a couple that help for the time being. I'm sure more will turn up, at least I hope so. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Limit of a function quick fail

I felt that it contained enough unreferenced sections to warrant a failure. Not even close to GA right now; didn't really stand a snowball's chance of passing without MAJOR work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White House Council on Environmental Quality (WP:AFC)

just wanted to mention that the whitehouse website is most likely  not copyrighted, because works created by the u.s. government are generally not protected. that having been said, there are exceptions (for example, work produced by a private contractor and licensed to the Government), and i still think you made the right decision (for NPOV reasons). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Typing one of the sentence into google get this, which leads to this, which has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Regards. :) KTC (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit tag

Here you placed a copy edit tag. What do you feel needs to be fixed? --SMP0328. (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I approached the article with the goal of promoting it to WP:GAN but changed my mind because basically I felt that the section on British history was not well-written. There were what I thought were some mistakes, which I fixed, but then I stopped because I am not even slightly familiar with this aspect of the subject.

Here are some examples of things that I would want fixed before we send this to WP:GAN. The sentence "This was a milestone in history, as it brought into light that the Magna Carta was not just something to be specific in naming persons sought and/or the places to be searched" may be grammatically correct, but is unclear in its meaning (unless one refers to the Magna Carta itself). Also, the section says that "Hale was an early visionary regarding the concept of 'probable cause'" but usually one uses a last name by itself only when one has fully introduced the individual earlier in the article.

The statement "The concept of facing a civil suit for false arrest is a far cry to many current provisions that offer officers protection such as the 'In good faith' ideal" is also not particularly well-written. In the following section, "Until the 1760's, Cuddihy remarked that a 'man's house was even less of a legal castle in America than in England' because when adopting British models the exceptions they had were ignored" can be improved in that we ought to specify who  ignored the exceptions when adopting British models, and also why ignoring the exceptions is the cause of one's house being less of a castle than in England. (If the rule is that one's "house is a castle," then ignoring the exceptions to the rule should make the house "more" of a "castle.")

Further down in the article, referring to modern law: there are two subsections on Terry stops – one under Searches and one under Seizures. Please merge them.

All in all I think that the text makes a good effort to be balanced but is not quite up to good article standards of writing yet. (That is not to say that I write any better; if I did, then maybe I would have edited more boldly.)

69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you okay with me adding what you said above the Fourth Amendment talk page, so other editors can see what is wrong with that section? --SMP0328. (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: ClueBot Examples

Yes, it is fine for you to add your own edits. Even if they have been reported as false positives. Basically, the new ClueBot will be trained from the training data, instead of rules I made like the current version does. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

Just so you know, I moved this edit to here. The project page isn't for discussing issues with articles, more on general how we're going to manage medical articles. Your thoughtful questions deserve an answer and belong on the discussion page of the article. I hope you don't mind. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you were an anon doing a test edit on MI - I rolled-back, then undid my roll-back after I investigated further, my apologies. WLU (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I had put a note on Talk:Myocardial infarction for users to check my comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, but because you deleted my comments, users might have thought "huh?" It looks like User:WLU completed the move for me. If your intent really was to delete, then please post a note here with your rationale. Hmm, looks like a case of us stepping on each other's toes. I see you completed the move, then I wiped that out when I put the link from the article talk page to my original note which, by then, you had already deleted. Very nice.  Well anyway I think that as of now, everything is the way it is intended. You might want to check both pages to make sure. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 04:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 VK184 and Torino scale contradiction fixed

Hi. I've fixed the contradiction, but if more info and/or references are required, feel free to reply. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Parachuting

Hi. I have a book like that right now and also see here. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: technical question — How do you get creation date information from a .PDF?

I got the creation date by opening up the PDF in Acrobat Reader (tried with both version 7 and version 8) and looking at Document Properties (try ctrl-D).   It lists creation and modification dates/times (1/29/2007) as well as the title (Pre-Employment Screening 101), author (CourtCheck), application (Acrobat PDFMaker 7.0.7 for Word), and other data. Astgtciv (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring comments

No matter the circumstance, users can not modify the messages of others per WP:TALK#Editing comments. I'm not sure why you've done so twice now, both on Talk:911 and on my own talk page. Explain? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:911, I refactored into the bulleted "support" and "oppose" formats used in other "votes"; I think that the most important thing is to notify when refactoring (except when the edit consists merely of adding a signature or an {{unsigned}} template). As for your talk page, I am self-reverting now. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You edited a little more than needed at Talk:911. Can you undo this as well? If there's something you want me to say, please let me speak with my own words. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I again apologize for putting "yes" in all caps. A clear mistake on my part. What I would like you to say is what you actually did say with the "yes" in normal case, but the "support" in bold. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: WikiProject Neurology + WikiProject Neuroscience

The difference is that neurology now deals with the disease aspects of the brain and the rest of the nervous system; whereas, neuroscience deals with the biological aspects of anatomy, functionality and specifically how things work. It's basically an attempt to split the workload. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for your comment. The above message was an automatically generated boilerplate by huggle. To clarify, in regard to this diff: [1]. I gather that you moved the text because the citation did not support the editorialization. But if that is the case, it should be removed, not moved. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, I added the editorialization only to bring "closure" to the article because otherwise the article seems to end abruptly. The source was the talk page (although I made a cursory attempt to verify it over the internet). If you think that it results in there being unwarranted POV then feel free to revert it. Also, while you're at it, please consider reviewing my nomination of the article for WP:GA; I did not really contribute anything to it other than some cleanup, so if it fails, you won't hurt my feelings. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll trust your judgment. You seem like an established wikignome -- unfortunately, recent changes patrol develops the habit of reverting anonymous users much more quickly than registered. I'm not an exception. When you're making a hundred edits a minute, sometimes the occasional dubious revert creeps in. Carry on ;-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, I responded to another IP's comment on your talk page. Looks like his 3rd edit was not as bad as the first two. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do what you want

You don't need my permission to do anything. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I just think that it's a good idea to ask before making major changes to other users' talk-page comments. Seeing that you have no objection, I have made this change. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hello!

I'm sorry for having blanked the talk pages. I was under the assumption that those templates were added because it had been decided by a small group of people that the pages should be moved and I just thought "That won't work, because so many will restore the redirects and that's not the way to go etc." Then, I didn't realise you were actually making well founded lobbying for those moves. Now I know better and I'm sorry for the blanking. Even though I strongly oppose the moves, I won't do anything so stupid again. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The consensus appears to be in your favor right now (versus only 2 votes in my favor, neither of which has a bolded "support.") I think that my proposal would have been stronger if I had done only 911 by itself; I included all these other numbers in the interests of globalization. Let's keep this vote open for a while longer. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Network switch, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Network switch was changed by 69.140.152.55 (u) (t) deleting 17770 characters on 2008-06-13T06:39:00+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gently swats cluey. That edit was fine. Please go pick on someone else ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that my blanking of suspected copyvio. might itself, in some cases, be a false-positive.

• In the case of neural correlates of consciousness, I could have reverted to the redirect, but arguably the article as it stands now is of high quality (hence not reverting to the redirect) and the big question is whether it really is copyvio. or, in fact, it is posted with the express permission of the copyright holder. (Can somebody check WP:OTRS for evidence of permission?)
• In the case of background check, the original version of the article contained text identical to multiple sources, and I think that I was right in blanking it and installing the {{subst:copyvio}} template, even though the original Wikipedia contributors apparently were vindicated after a thorough investigation by a more experienced editor.
• In the case of network switch, the current version of the article contains verbiage that is identical to stuff on a commercial website, but I could have reverted to an older version. However, that would not address my hunch (and it is only a hunch) that there is a third source that is the true origin of much of the material in the article.

In conclusion maybe I should be somewhat less quick to blank suspected copyvio.; I earlier suggested having a second cv-unsure template for cases where a URL is available and the editor is not sure whether copyright is in fact infringed or not, but I understand that there are policy-based reasons not to have such a template. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What I think would be ideal, but I have no idea if it's technically possible is an IP white-list for Cluey. While often times an IP blanking is unconstructive, there are established IP users such as yourself who are following Wiki guidelines when blanking. Sometimes what I do is gut a copyright except for the initial sentence and stub it. It solves the problem but leaves something for editors to work with. Don't know if that's the ideal solution either. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mirror neuron

Hi! Thanks for the note and for dealing with the image. Can I request that you not nominate articles at GAN unless you personally intend to fix the problems the reviewer brings up? Otherwise people just end up spending their time reviewing the article and having to fail it in the end anyway. A lot of my comments were just about the prose and don't require familiarity with the subject matter to fix, if you did want to have a go at it. Anyway, keep up the good work. Peace, delldot talk 13:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. What I have been doing so far is to nominate articles that I like that others have written, but maybe I should do the opposite, and nominate something that I have written instead. However, the article that I consider to possibly be my "best" work is not likely to pass until I have addressed the comments that are on the talk page. Regarding mirror neuron:

• I think that I can cleanup some of the jargon, given that the article is not otherwise too {{technical}} for general audiences.
• "No single neurons can be responsible for the phenomenon" I think means exactly what it says; that is, the mirror neurons never act in isolation, but always as part of some type of network.
• I actually like the lead the way it is. The big reason the article fails is not because of the lead, but simply because of the legal technicality of being unable to "prove" the image is in the public domain (and yet, "good articles" are supposed to contain images, if appropriate for the subject). (I think that the presence of images should only be required if necessary to explain technical material to lay readers, but that's just my POV.)
• "The second paragraph under "Discovery" doensn't have to do with the discovery": that was my fault, a by-product of my cleanup of the article. To fix this somebody should do some copyediting or even some minor rewriting. I might be able to do that.
• Regarding the references, I thought that it should be done by somebody who actually reads them, but then again, I didn't notice the tool you referred to until just now.
• "Primary sources are not the best for wikipedia" is true when they support controversial material. For the mirror neuron article, add secondary sources, but do not subtract primary. For me this will require a good amount of work, but for an expert it will be less than a snap.
• Brain jargon: It's hard to find free images, isn't it? But I think that I might be able to find them in a government website if I look hard enough.
• The comment about WP:DATED is well-taken.
• "Short, one-sentence paragraphs should be avoided." Not a big deal. Probably can be left unfixed.
• I think that "eye tracking" is the noun version and "eye-tracking" is the adjective, but there are unsourced statements in the relevant grammar article that say that my understanding of the hyphen rule is wrong.
• I didn't know about the   rule. That should be the easiest fix of all

Sorry about making you do all that work. I hope that the editors of the article take your feedback to heart and, together with me, get the article up to standard. Thank you for the constructive feedback. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm psyched to see you're going to keep working on the article. I certainly didn't mean that you should only nominate articles you've written yourself, but you should definitely only nominate ones if you're willing to put in the work the reviewer recommends. Let me know if you need more input or whatnot, I too hope it's up to standard soon! I'm not going to revert your edit to my talk page, but you can if you like. Peace, delldot talk 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to work on it, but not right away; I already have 3 things on my on-wiki to-do list, not to mention the off-wiki things-to-be-done . If it needs to be done in a hurry, then it will be done by somebody who's more expert. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]