User talk:Chemistrygeek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Fictional Websites thing 2 Mark H. Johnson (professor) 3 G10 tagging 4 account 5 Bad categorizations 6 Miss Bahamas Miss take? 7 Thanks 8 "welcome" 9 Kid Boy vandalism 10 You have one... 11 Edit conflict 12 Welcoming Users 13 Marking pages as patrolled 14 Wikiuser100 - nearly there 15 Well done... 16 Progress report

[edit] Fictional Websites thing

Hi, I am Andrewrox. I see that you want the article to be deleted. Just a question though: Why does it have to be deleted? It is not advertising and all I did was transfer it from the iCarly article over to a seperate article :) I was gonna do the same with the Trivia/Notes thing :) Please reply soon! --Andrewrox (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that they deleted my article, just as I had changed it :) --Andrewrox (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark H. Johnson (professor)

Could you please explain why you tagged this perfectly innocuous article about a neuroscientist for speedy deletion as an attack page? I would also suggest a very fast and sincere apology to the page's author is in order. nancy ^(talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, sorry no. That is simply not good enough. The ONLY justification for tagging something as an attack page is if that is what it is & whether you know the subject of the article or not (and we both know that you don't) is neither here nor there. Please do not do any more tagging until you have a proper comprehension of when it is appropriate to request speedy deletion. You should start by reading WP:CSD. nancy ^(talk) 12:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G10 tagging

You've just done it again at Joshua Hanchett which Was Not An Attack Page. Please desist. Pedro :  Chat  12:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not making an attack. It was not notable, but it was not an attack. Anyway, I'm sorry but I believe you are a sock-puppet of and indefinately blocked user. Please desist with this relentless course of action. Pedro :  Chat  12:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay Chris, you're not a sock of, for example, User:Computermadgeek then? Pedro :  Chat  13:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] account

Hi, got one already (since October 2004), but I'm mostly not logged in :) --85.93.199.189 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I'd say that's up to you. :) I don't have a static IP, one of the four edits made with my current IP isn't even from me. --85.93.199.189 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad categorizations

You seem to have categorized The Ointment Seller, which is a play, as a "religious festival", and RADlab Software, which is software, as "Radiation health effects researchers". Perhaps you could review some of your recent categorizations and fix any other errors like those? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

DC is right. Those are bad categorisations - probably best if you make sure that your first edits today are to fix them - if you are not sure what the right ones should be then just replace the {{uncategorised}} tag. If you plan to do any more categorisation work then perhaps it would be a good idea to stick with topics which you know about - like when you did the albums - then you can be absolutely sure you are getting it right. nancy ^(talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have now fixed those categories and have looked into all of my contributions and they all look ok to me. Feel free to tell me if I have missed any but im pretty sure that I havent. Chemistrygeek (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall which change started me looking at your categorizations, and I don't really want to go through them all, but here's another example I was able to find quickly: you categorized Touchmail, which is a webmail application, as a "mobile phone" and a "smart phone". Maybe you could take another, more careful look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Bahamas Miss take?

I don't get it - why do you think it lacks context? --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. OK. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the welcome. I'll take my time and try to do things properly. --Joe Deagan (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "welcome"

Thanks for you welcome, i will make a sig now.

I will edit "gaming" pages at this wiki

Buzz 9 1990 (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kid Boy vandalism

Hey chemistrygeek, I am very sorry for the vandalism done using my account. I had left the pc without logging out and someone misused my account. Please delete the article created as soon as possible. If you do not mind, I would also like to remove your msg from my talk page. Regards Muhammad(talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Muhammad(talk) 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have one...

more message on my talkpage that you haven't responded to. Please respond when you get a chance, I realize you're enjoying your tea at the moment. :-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict

Hello again, I hope you don't mind me asking a question. If while making a comment on a talk page and there is an edit conflict, how do I incorporate it into the conversation withought having to rewrite it over and over again? I have tried to find out on the tutorials but can't seem to locate it. Thanks. Joe Deagan (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interupt, but I thought I might be able to help. When you get an edit conflict scroll down the page some way - you'll see another input box marked "your text". You can then cut and paste what you typed and place it it the box at the top of the page which contains the most recent edit. Does that help? Pedro :  Chat  11:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure does! Thanks a million! Joe Deagan (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming Users

Hi there. Don't you think that it is a bit weired that you welcome users before they have made any contributions with a template that says thanks for you contributions (see User talk:ElonBrennan)? Maybe you could wait until they have made some contributions before you welcome them? This is only my opinion and I do not mean to jump on you. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am currently discussing about making a new template for welcomming users that have no contributions. Ill let you know when more happens on this. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I will more than likely just take one of the other templates and change it slightly. I will remove the bit that says thanks for contributions and add something else. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok go for it :> Give me a link once you have! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing there for me at the moment... Are you sure you have saved it ? :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry im blind (I was looking at the user page not the talk page). Yep that looks very good. Ill try to implement some new templates soon ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can deal with that. I will make the templates for you and I will message you once I have done them. (Could be a day or 2 as there are many welcome templates to create / change) --·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marking pages as patrolled

Hi there. You have probably already seen that a user had come to me with concerns about your marking new pages as patrolled but not dealing with the problems in them. (examples are on my talk page) If you mark a page as patrolled it means that other new page patrollers (probably) won't bother looking at so - as with everything here - you need to be quite careful. There are two circumstances in which it is OK to mark a page as patrolled:

1. It is a good article or stub which needs no further action
2. It is a problem article which has already been tagged (either by you or by someone else)

If you are not sure if the article is good or is a problem then don't mark it patrolled and another editor will be able to check it out. nancy ^(talk) 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiuser100 - nearly there

Hi there again. It's really good that you apologised to Wikiuser100 but you still haven't quite understood what happened and so what you said on his talk page does not reflect the edits that he actually made. Wikiuser100 did not at any time make edits to the spelling of Willem/William. The name had been spelled Willem in the article for quite some time and then an IP came along and changed it to William. None of this was anything to do with Wikiuser100. The only editing Wikiuser100 did on the article was to add the words "what is planned as" to a sentence. May be you could go back to his talk page and just say that you got completely muddled up with the page history and thought he had changed a spelling when he didn't. I'm sure he'll understand, he seems like a very reasonable chap. nancy ^(talk) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well done...

...for this. How much better does it feel to be name-checked on a noticeboard for doing good things rather than bad? Good stuff. nancy ^(talk) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progress report

As requested I have looked through your recent contributions.

1. Mainspace - you haven't been in mainspace much, you tagged a few things for speedy, reverted a bit of vandalism and done some categorisation. Overall there is nothing really troubling but there are a few places where you didn't get it quite right.

   • Susan Quinn - you tagged this as A7 (no notability asserted) but even at the time you tagged it the article said that she had won several literary prizes. A7 is probably the speedy deletion criteria with the highest bar to meet - really all an article has to do is say that the subject is notable, it doesn't have to prove it. Even if you think that it might not be true then you can't use an A7 as speedy is only for obvious and non-controversial cases - the right thing to do is to take it to articles for deletion.
   • The Great Bletsoe Storm - remember what we said about giving the article creator a chance to get some content posted? - you tagged it "no context" in the very same minute it was created.
   • Your vandalism reverts look OK except for on Mao Asada - just because someone removes content from an article doesn't necessarily mean that they are a vandal; I know it is difficult when people don't write helpful edit summaries but remember the motto "if in doubt - leave it for someone else".
   • Your categorisation is coming along nicely and is much improved. Only thing to say here is that rather than add a stub category you should add an actual stub tag (which will automatically add a stub category). For example on Kadhal Azhivathillai you should have added {{India-film-bio-stub}}. You can find a full list of stub types at WP:STUBS. Also technically if an article only has a stub category then it still counts as uncategorised.

2. User talk - lots of welcoming & you have taken User:Addshore's advice and started using a template which doesn't mention contributions. I also noticed that you put a welcome message on a user that you ahd also given a level 1 warning to - that is a really good thing to do (but again make sure it is not one which thanks them for their contributions). I'd say stick with the "plate of cookies" and you can't go wrong.

All in all I think you are definitely going in the right direction, you are not quite there yet but your change in attitude and approach is very marked and if I compare your edits now with those of a week ago I can hardly believe they were made by the same person. Well done & keep up the good work. nancy ^(talk) 16:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)