User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 2

I have to say "stop feeding the trolls" at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kaveh_Farrokh

It's obvious that a certain minority keeps drumming up that single book, which already has its own article anyway, as central reason to keep Farrokh's bio, despite the obvious fact that liberal arts academics write books as part of their job description, and that Farrokh isn't notable for anything else, so he clearly fails WP:PROF. My bet is that anyone closing that AfD will say "no consensus" since the minority has managed to derail the AfD with interminable tangential and off-topic discussions. VG ☎ 18:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion re CreazySuit et al

Just a quick note to say that the RfC on CreazySuit, Ariobarza and Larno Man, to which you contributed, has been deleted as improperly certified (but don't worry, it's served its purpose). The issues with these three editors are currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza, User:CreazySuit and User:Larno Man - see the subsection at WP:AN/I#Disruption of Battle of Opis for the key diffs from the RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy declined for Charlotte Best

Hi, I've declined the speedy on this article, because while the previous article title was salted, the content of the article itself is not substantially identical to previous versions of the article. I agree the quality of the article appears poor - please feel free to either clean it up or pursue its deletion through other means (AfD, prod, etc). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC).

And another

Hey there. I declined the speedy on A State Of Trance 2008 as it's been released, which does to me constitute a big enough change to the article status that it doesn't qualify as a G4. Notability is still hazy, though, so if you want to AFD it again, that option's open. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Dear Guillaume2303, Thanks for your message. You may be right that I am emotionally less involved but may be it is fair to say that due to my field I know the personage better than the others. What I suggest is to bring backk again his publications on the ethnic issues in Iran. A lot of them are in Iranscope. It is not Farrokh's website! http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/index.htm

One is in Asian times

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/Gk03Ak02.html

in the Rozaneh magazine http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/JanFeb2005/aFarrokhArab.html http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/MarchApril06/AmiddleEast.html

I saw this article also in venus Project website but I do not know if Venus Project has published it with the consent of Rozaneh Magazine or not!

He writes retorts to some authoors about ethnic issues in Iran. Like these ones in the Iran-heritage website http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/people-origin4.htm http://www.iran-heritage.org/takeaction/story3.htm

And not to forget his online book published by Rozaneh magazine but also freely downloadable online

http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/aazariINDEX.HTML

http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/Azerbaijan-Text[nopict].pdf

His writings on ethnic issues are all well sourced and academic (with citations refs. and all) but are written in a language which are easily digestable for most readers. At least the Iranian ones. And They are easily accissible. As I know that was the aim of the author from the beginning, to reach a lot of ordinary people for his writings on ethnic issues. So his works are read by a rather large numbers of Iranians online and he is one of the better known online authors (with academic backgrounds) among Iranians.

In addition his works, especially that one about Pan Turanism gives hits at google Scholar

In fact he is a multifacetted Academician. So I suggest to include these articles to his article.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Guillaume2303 I think in Iranscope there is a list of many of Farrokh's articles (with the notabble exceptions of that one in Asian times). As I know his Azerbaijan online book has had the most resonance--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Guillaume2303, Thanks for your hard work. Putting examples of works as references is a little bit unorthodox, but I think this is a good compromise for everyone. You have mentioned in the text his merits, and you refered to his works as examples to solidate the statements in the text. It is nice. Thanks and best wishes.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoser AfD

Hi Guillaume2303. Please explain why you think my references fail to establish his notability. cygnis insignis 07:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations in taxonomy are more important, as you correctly seem to imply, due to rules of biological nomenclature. This is an example of C.1 in guideline WP:PROF. One cannot read about some families without coming across his name, there are numerous citations to his contributions. The most compelling evidence of his notability (not his achievements), is that eleven researchers are attached to the papers about his contributions. If this falls below your personal threshold, you would find there are an enormous number of similar articles that should not be included. How and why he he is notable is explained in the article, not by the articles mere existence. We are not paper. This is my current interpretation, thanks for taking the time to reply. cygnis insignis 09:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've just finished rewriting this article, could you have another look at the AfD? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi Guillaume2303! It might have been an accident, but recently you re-created a spelling mistake (similiar) which I have corrected (similar) in the article Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) deficiency. Just informing. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, no idea what happened there. But all seems to be OK now. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/A_State_Of_Trance

Hi - I remembered that you were around during the deletion nomination for the article A State Of Trance 2008 by the user of the similar name. At that time the author had removed the afd tag; it was replaced but again removed by him again with a different user name. They are indeed the same person and this incident of him trying to circumvent Wikipedia policy is significant. He has used these different user names on a few occasions as puppets. If you would like to comment there and help make it more clear please do. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 06:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, looks like the case has already been handled by now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Paul Cordopatis and ASC

Thanks for your comments Guillaume2303.

I agree with you on WoS being a better source for citation analyses.

When I said "19 entries (not a low number)" I meant 19 entries in ASC, which does not carry that many journals. Someone with 19 entries in ASC will easily get 3 to 4 times as many entries in Google Scholar.

Proceedings are important in computer science, but computer science professor get denied tenure and promtion all the time if they don't have pubs in refereed journals like ACM and IEEE transactions.

Take care. --Eric Yurken (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

deleting Dick Brooks (performer) page

You deleted this page before I finished it and it was my mistake I guess. I was about to add references to the various items, but did not get to it quick enough. For the record Dick Brooks put together a world famous, in magic, cabaret in the 1970's and 1980's, The Magic Towne House where he mentored many now famous magicians. Many stars of the day frequented the club or used their services including Johnny Carson, Dianna Ross, David Copperfield, David Merrick, Stevie Wonder, John Lithgo, Carly Simon and a long list. It was highly reviewed by New York Magazine and The New York Times. It was an incubator for many famous magicians of today. He also wrote and published a leading magic magazine of time, Hocus Pocus, for three years. He is currently curator of the Houdini Museum in Scranton, the only building in the world devoted to Houdini. Will try to build the page again, but build it around quotes from published materials in print and on the web. regards magicus@comcast.net

(Magicusb (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Kamau Kambon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kamau Kambon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination). Thank you. Trickrick1985 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Miller (theologian)

Thanks Guillaume2303. Sensible outcome. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kudzai Sevenzo

I've no particular brief for this article and no knowledge of nor interest in the person, but it seems to me that in the context of Zimbabwe this is likely to be a notable person with verifiability. I'm not about either to remove your prod or to do any serious work in the article, it's a horrid mess, but I was wondering if you might, yourself, consider removing the prod if any substantive work happens in the next couple of days. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, if the article improves the prod should be removed. But as it stands, this is hardly a good contribution to the encyclopedia... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Adventures of Victoria and Balthazar

To avoid being speedied can we just move the content to a user page while we are editing? The documentation on moving a page suggests that there is a move tab somewhere, but none of us can see it. Can you provide any help? leithaus talk

Hi, This sounds like a good idea. I've moved the article to User talk:Leithaus/The Adventures of Victoria and Balthazar. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

controversy

Hi Guillaume2303,

I barely have time to edit in this place.

The way the lead paragraph is written makes the reader think that scientology and antipsychiatry are almost synonymous. In other words, it misleads the reader. Generally the two groups don't like each other. The secular literature does not even mention scientology at all. So please reconsider this when editing the article.

thank you,

--Rodolfo Martinez 83.231.81.167 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Pedram Hamrah

I looked into the assertion made in that article a bit, and it appear to me that every article published in those journals asserts it's importance. However, this needs to be established by independent reviewers and coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP1E and Speedy Deletion

Hi. I notice that you have just nominated Rivka Holtzberg and Gavriel Holtzberg for speedy deletion under A7, but citing WP:BLP1E in the edit summary. I have some sympathy towards the BLP1E argument, but speedy deletion is not the way to achieve this - as BLP concerns are not a valid deletion criteria per the criteria for speedy deletion. If you wish to start a discussion with a view to deleting these articles for BLP1E concerns, articles for deletion is probably a better place to start. If you've any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

No worries, like I said, I'm sympathetic to and agree with your base reasoning, but the media coverage and the like quite clearly disqualifies both from CSD A7. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Jona Lendering

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jona Lendering, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jona Lendering. Thank you. EALacey (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Closure

Undone on request, I see what you mean. However, I don't see a typo in my closure notice... :| — neuro^(talk) 22:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right... thanks again! :P — neuro^(talk) 22:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Guillaume2303, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Herb Siler

Thanks for adding some polish to this article.

You made a comment in history that that this was "another stub on some obscure sportsfigure that will never develop into a full article".

I accept it may be difficult to gather significant amounts of information on this boxer and he was fairly obscure. However, he did fight Muhammad Ali, which in my opinion makes Herb notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writelotspaynone (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

--Writelotspaynone (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, Guillaume2303! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, may I please ask a few questions?

I read your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie sarkis and I'd like ask a few questions.

I've re-read the pages on deletion policy and notability guidelines. How would you suggest an editor go about handling an article like this one: Kent Stanley This is a new article written by a single author, likely autobiographical. It contains claims of notability, but no 3rd party sources. The only contributions by this author are on the article in question. Special:Contributions/HaroldKStanley

In a broad sense, how does one go about improving something like this? Do I need to gut the article and just make a stub saying something like:

Kent Stanley is the senior associate athletics director for development at Utah State.

and cite: http://utahstateaggies.cstv.com/genrel/071808aaa.html

But then what? I am not sure this individual is notable. Do I just leave it? Prod? Afd?

Thank you very much for your time. Liberal Classic (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Liberal, I have responded at the Sarkis AfD. As for Stanley, I am not the right person to ask: I am not at all interested in sports (find it really very boring) and feel that WP's inclusion criteria for sportsfigures are way too broad. Muhammed Ali? Sure, but also every poor sap (Herb Siler) that was ever beaten into a pulp by him? Anyway, given my lack of interest in sports, I am very unfamiliar with the notability requirements there. If Stanley misses those criteria (and because you give him as an example, I assume that you think he does), I would do some Googling to see if anything else crops up. If it doesn't, I'd tag it for notability, prod it, and leave a prodwarning on the creator's talk page. Often, autobio creators then just leave things be and the article disappears without further loss of time for the community. If not, then I think AfD would be the way to go.

As I said on the Sarkis AfD page, sorry for sounding a bit harsh in my comments there, I should count to ten before editing when I lose my patience... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite alright. The criteria for notability are fairly detailed, and there are different levels of page deletion. There's somewhat of a learning curve to exactly just what wikipedia is supposed to be. I know I've put the wrong kind of speedy tag on articles before. When I see them I try to correct them now. I totally understand how seeing newbies make the same mistakes would get frustrating. On the other hand, there seems to be so much garbage and people gaming the system that sometimes I just want to slap db-nonsense on everything. Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. :) Liberal Classic (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deprod notification: Thanks for the Memories (novel)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Thanks for the Memories (novel), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —Snigbrook 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion and page backups

I have started a project to add notable members of the South African entertainment industry to Wikipedia, and as a start, I have added stubs for key people in an effort to kickstart the gathering of evidence for each person. One of these, Al Prodgers, was speedily deleted, and this has presented a problem: the original page is no longer accessible, and the research done so far is lost.

Is the expectation that Wikipedia authors keep offline backups of pages that are works in progress, just in case pages are deleted? I would have thought that the original creator of an edit would be able to see that edit in the page history, but this does not seem to be the case. (I understand the need to hide deleted pages from public view).

Undertaking research of any South African is made difficult by the historical stifling of the internet in that country: very little evidence is online, and much evidence must be sourced from offline sources. This process is made more difficult when pages are deleted, and research gathered so far becomes hidden. The deletion of stubs makes collaboration difficult, as people are usually unwilling to add detail to pages that aren't there in the first place.

Minfrin (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting novel characters pages

Hi Guillaume2303, I've noticed that you've removed the text from some of the pages of characters from novels such as Legend of the Condor Heroes and The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber and redirected them to their respective novel pages. You mentioned that not every character needs a page but I disagree with you. I think it's alright to leave those pages there as they were, because information seekers might find it easier to read the pages of the characters to find out more about them rather than reading from the novel's page, which is far too long for them to comprehend and find the information they want in a short period of time. Can you give a more substantial reason for removing the original text and redirecting them to their respective novel pages? If not, can you please undo those edits you've made? Thank you. Lonelydarksky (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Guillaume2303, I agree with Lonelydarksky. I was very surprised when suddenly the character pages, which I used to visit quite often (since I haven't read the Condor-novels yet but am currently watching the TV-adaptions) redirected to the main article. I also agree that not every supporting character needs a page but at least the main characters, like Yang Guo, do. In my opinion that's similar as if the "Heathcliff"-page would suddenly redirect to the main article of Wuthering Heights. I assume that nobody would ever challenge the use of a separate page for the main character of that novel. Alpenlisi (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I just see that there is a similar discussion about Water Margin below. Please forgive me for interrupting a "work in progress". Alpenlisi (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Water Margin characters

Hi. I'll assume that you're not familiar with Chinese literature, but that is fine. Water Margin is one of the four classic Chinese texts. The book spans a hundred chapters and has been read by billions of Chinese. There is no question about its notability, but because it is a Chinese text, asserting its notability in an English encyclopedia is not bereft of tremendous challenges. Flowing from that, many of the characters become inherently notable, because the novel is essentially about the characters and chapters are devoted to the more prominent ones. There are plenty of examples on WP to show that entries are not only dedicated to the text but to the characters as well.

There are around 200-300 characters mentioned in the book. No doubt not all of them can justifiably have a WP article. Having said that, redirecting the articles on the characters to Water Margin is counterproductive on several levels:

1. The problem with the entries is twofold: sources; notability. We should approach the problem from this angle. Note that the Water Margin article does not refer to many of the Water Margin characters, so redirecting Fang Wei for instance to Water Margin will only confuse the reader searching on that character.
2. Rather than redirect, why not tag them as having a lack of reference? For the more "minor" characters, sure, they can be consolidated either into a list or subsumed into a more major character. But redirecting will not solve anything.
3. You seem to have adopted your broad brush approach to even the prominent characters. Lin Chong is not notable? You will be laughed at if you said this to other people. Try googling it -- his name in Chinese, if the results in English are ambiguous.
4. Many of those redirected articles have valuable inter-wiki links; indeed those inter-wiki links provide a clue as to the notability of some of these characters.

Moving forward, I would suggest tagging rather than redirecting.

The more substantive entries can be tagged; the stubby ones can be merged. If neither situation applies, redirect. How's that? Chensiyuan (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a workable solution and it looks like Lonelydarksky has already made a start with this. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Public universities

Hello. I've simply been reverting edits by a user who appeared for just a day, who categorized non-universities as universities. I do not dispute the public nature of other institutes of research and higher education in France, but a French "public university" is a very clearly and precisely defined entity. The eighty-one public universities remain labeled as such, and I have no intention to undo that (indeed, I did much of the original labeling myself). -- MyPOV (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically regarding the University of Bordeaux, it is a PRES. There is a Wikipedia page for these, and closely related consortia. -- MyPOV (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And regarding the University of Technology of Troyes, it is a non-university institute (école extérieure aux universités), as defined by Chapter I, Section II (Articles 34 through 36) of French law 84-52 of 26 January 1984 regarding higher education (the loi Savary). There is a Wikipedia page for the three French universities of technology, which all fall into this category, and there is no reason why we couldn't create a template for them as well. -- MyPOV (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Paris Dauphine University was granted the status of grand établissement by the French Ministry of Education in 2004, and at that time ceased to be a public university, as that term is defined by the Ministry, despite retaining "University" in its name. The Ministry's statistical publications, for instance, ceased to list Dauphine among the public universities after 2004. -- MyPOV (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-English lyrics, poetry quotations

Hi, I thought I'd better let you know that the fact that original lyrics and quotations are not in English is not grounds for their removal -- if there is no translation, add the "notenglish" tag. If they are excessively long they can be moved to Wikisource in that language. Please don't just make material vanish inexplicably. Xanthoxyl (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User notice biog2

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with the above user. Please do not add poorly referenced or irrelevant information on living persons. Thank you ARFCRFarfcrf (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Johnson

Just to say thanks for helping with this article. I've been having some real problems with people (many from Johnson's home town) repeatedly deleting the fact she was on an all women shortlist. --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that both Shakehandsman and Guillaume2303 have been repeatedly editing Biographies of living persons incorrectly. Please be careful with the sources you reference. It is not beneficial to use inaccurate sources or to attempt to bias Biographies of living persons for personal gain. ARFCRFarfcrf (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain for what reason you continue to edit this page inaccurately and it will then be clear that you did not do this for personal gain.ARFCRFarfcrf (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Something very odd here - this is clearly a SPA but it's not clear to me why they are intent on removing what appears to be harmless information. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes very strange. For reference the IP address that also behaves the same way as this person/people is 82.16.97.122. A whois search shows it to be based in Cambridge which is Johnson's place of residence. Once again thansk to everyone for their hard work - I could have never coped with all this on my own and was fed up of it even before today--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that they've deleted similar information from articles on 10 other female MPs regarding shortlists via this IP address (i.e. without logging in). The articles haven't been fixed yet so still have the information missing. --Shakehandsman (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI Cookingapples is now claiming you and I make the same spelling mistakes, such as for the word "parliament". My spelling isn't the best, but I generally don't have any problems with that particular word. --Shakehandsman (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos nemer

I posted the weird activity by the two IP addresses to ANI if you wish to go over there and chime in what you think is going on. I have never seen something like that before. MuZemike 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#201.19.218.49. MuZemike 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

International society ibm

Thanks for taking a hand, on this & related. DGG (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

nn journal

And I appreciate the occasion to demonstrate with Journal of Public Affairs Education that I do not regard every academic journal as notable. DGG (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Auto Europe Australia

Content has been changed,please remove request to merge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto Europe Australia (talk • contribs) 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Aleksandr Dulichenko

I noticed that too and thought it came from declension. What convinced me to recreate the article was this paper by Humphrey Tonkin (I could only get it from the google cache). It indicates he is noted in the (small) community of Esperantists / interlinguists, and that the Festschrift was one of two "Particularly important additions to the literature" in 2006. I got his name on the Festschrift from gbooks - was tired and not thinking straight - gbooks makes ludicrous mistakes on bibliographic data sometime. He's not listed as an editor in the bibliography for Tonkin's paper, probably just wrote something in it. Tonkin calls him prolific and notes that a bibliography of his works was published, together good evidence of notability, I think. John Z (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Howard

Thanks. I can make very very obvious edits like adding tags or linking to sources on the talk page or deleting the most obvious policy violations, but, because I've spoken out against the benzene litigation, I'd prefer not to make any edits that might be controversial, and will want to defer to others on that. The page will need a rewrite beyond what I've done. THF (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:JoH2009cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JoH2009cover.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred M. Levin

I don't know you feelings on Biographical pages of acedemics but perhaps you would like to opine on this page which is up for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_M._Levin_(2nd_nomination) best, Mwalla (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Re: Cordova Academy

Hey, thanks for the warning. I'll try and bear that in mind in the future. Sorry if I did "bite" anybody, and I certainly didn't mean to - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Langton

Just a friendly note on Richard Langton. I removed the prod tag because while he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, there is a claim of meeting WP:ATHLETE. If you think it needs to go, AfD would be the way to go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:

dear Guillaume2303, sorry for too much delay of reply and thanks for spending time.I'll be glad so much if you help me more on editing pages. your comments for "Daru" was very good. I just should say that DARU is listed by ISI/Thomson, with the IF=0.5 find the record on http://www.sid.ir/En/isi_iran.asp please and if you search on isiknowledge.com/ also you can find the name, thnx again KMM Nanopharmacy talk 21:50, 8 March 2009

Matthias Hentze page

Dear Guillaume2303, Thanks for editing the Matthias Hentze page I created. Why is there a redirect page from "Matthias hentze" to the official page? Also, how can I get the wikipedia link to this page to appear as the first search result when searching for MH on google? Much appreciate your help. Best wishes,

Heidelberg0909 (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Langton

Just a friendly note on Richard Langton. I removed the prod tag because while he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, there is a claim of meeting WP:ATHLETE. If you think it needs to go, AfD would be the way to go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Image

Tagged as no permission. Thanks, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Academic Journals articles with comments

I have nominated Category:Academic Journals articles with comments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Automatically assessed Academic Journals articles

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:WikiProject Academic Journal articles]]
[[Category:Automatically assessed articles]]

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Category creation is a specialized skill, but a useful one to have in your repertoire. I'm glad you are learning by doing. I parented Category:Automatically assessed Academic Journals articles for you, but I encourage you to look at what I did. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Kate Forsyth

You prodded the articles on her books. I agree that she does not seem notable enough that the books should have separate articles, but some of the information--certainly not all of it!! should me merged. I put on merge tags, but I probably won't be able to follow them up. It's possible that there are Australian sources for reviews, though. My intuition for Australian childrens fantasy is a little on the weak side. DGG (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

}}

Matthias Hentze page

Dear Guillaume2303, Can you advise me how I can create a German translation of the Matthias Hentze page? I already have the text in German but am unsure where to put this so that the option "languages" appears as a link on the left-hand side of the original page. Surely, I don't create a new Matthias Hentze page? Thanks for your help. Best wishes, Heidelberg0909 (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Matthias Hentze page reply

Dear Guillaume2303, Thanks for the advice -the page now exists in English and German. I am not quite sure I understand the citations rules, as I thought the links to the homepage of Matthias at EMBL and the MMPU would suffice. Do I need to quote articles on him to prove what is in the text? Thanks. Heidelberg0909 (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirection of "chirality (biology)" to "chirality (biology)"

Hi Guillaume2303,

I agree with you that much of the content in the page "chirality (biology)" is explained thoroughly in "chirality (chemistry)", and thank you for raising the concern that it would only confuse users if the former page were left as it was as a separate article.

However, I believe it is worth to discuss the topic further in this article, for example, a few very nice sections to add to this page will be "Proposed theories about biological homochirality", "The search for mirror life". To be short, I intend to extend the page in the biology direction rather than stereochemistry. And hence, there is a necessity that the page stay as a separate article.

Please tell me your thoughts.

Fan Wu 07:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdk8800 (talk • contribs)

Matthias Hentze revisited

Dear Guillaume2303, Thanks for the advice. I have done on the English page what the German editor did on the German page: and that's to add Matthias Hentze's PhD thesis from the German National Library catalogue under external links. Would this count as a reliable source, worthy of removing the inline citations warning, which as you rightly predicted doesn't exist on the German page? On another note, I see you have removed the statement that Matthias is a German scientist AND medical doctor, on the grounds that the article later mentions that he is an MD. I understand your point, but we see the first statement as the shortest summary of who Matthias is, and the two categories German scientist and medical doctor are two separate achievements worthy of a mention in the first sentence. I hope you will allow us to reintroduce this statement as it was. :) Thanks as always, Heidelberg0909 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Curtis (dog trainer) article

Hello Guillaume2303 - just wanted to send a quick note through as a big thank you for the additional editing you did on the Richard Curtis (Dog Trainer to the Stars!!) article. I'm powering through some of the really old New Pages patrol logs and, although I'm doing some minor tagging and editing, I'm really just trying to get some more eyes on the articles to clean-up as needed. And I completely agree with your notability tag...I was tempted to PROD, but wanted to leave the cleaned-up article up for a while to see if additional sources would be added. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC) PS My husband is just finishing his doctoral thesis in Neuroscience, so a bit in common there...

Kaarmanbek Kuluev

Hello Guillaume2303. I changed the article about Kaarmanbek Kuluev. Can you check if it works now? Thanks. -- Aitmerek 11:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Schelle

Your prod on this article was contested, but I took it to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Schelle. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer

Thank you for the suggested improvements to the article Anna Baltzer. The article has been under development for about a month. It will continue to be under development until a photograph of the subject is attained under proper license. Will add an additional "under construction" notice to the article.

It is absolutely correct that the article needs clean-up, the objective during construction was to compile as much research material as possible then condense to proper form. It is just that the article space itself is a convinient medium for this purpose. Again, will add addition "under construction" tag.

Henry Delforn (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer

Wrt "Dear Henry, I am reverting back to the revision that I made of this article. It was in sore need of cleanup and re-writing. All information that I deleted is still available through the article history, so if at a later point you need to get it back, it is still there. Meanwhile, what is really urgently needed is evidence that this person actually meets WP:N> For this we need reliable independent sources that discuss her and her activism. Without those, the article risks to be taken to AfD and as it currently stands, I don't think it would survive (and the non-cleaned version would stand even less of a chance). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Henry_Delforn"

Let address briefly. With respect to notability, it should become obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that any Jew that stands up against her own people on behalf of Palestinian children and their parents, who lived for 8 months in the West Bank with Palestinians under attack, and who since 2005 has toured the US speaking on behalf of peace, and who has put up with animated idiots and morons from audience members, is considered "notable". As far as the "sources" you refer, well, you've deleted them. Yeah i know they are still there but in the background which makes it difficult for me to work. All you are doing is making things difficult to complete this neutral and controversial article which requires more information to condense to proper form. So please do not continue to delete my work until it is complete. Your continued resistance makes one wonder of your political agenda. Are you anti-Palestinian? i have no problem reporting such discrimination to Wikipedia authorities and/or media. None at all. Let me finish the work; don't change it until it is finished. You should know this if you had taken the time to analyze the date sequence of work in the history tab. But you didn't, you simply and blindly without ego control started the disruption. Again, let the article be complete before further deletions. How can i be clearer? Henry Delforn (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV of Dan S.

Hello, could you head back to [1] and see if the sources provided on the talk page are sufficient to address the issues with WP:N? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BBFcover.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:BBFcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Milenko Zablaćanski

Whats wrong with you!? Accident happened on January 5. 2008, about 16:30,  ! Dont change that! And why are you removing Šišović? He is well known here, and if you let me explain that, i will fix it all. leave article alone until i finished it! And after that, i will ask you, if you like, to see it, and fix it. ok?

Tadija (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, i was talking about those two sentences that you removed, and not about Šišović article. I think that it is encyclopedic to tell that one politician was involved in accident with death. And i of course was not against any edits, thank you for the grammar edits, i am not native English speaker. Just want to do my best. Thank you, i will not report you... :)

Tadija (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, he was sentenced for one year only, after it was clear that he was driving too fast, and out of order. But because of his career, he got only one year. That why i wanted to write it down! Ok? Tadija (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No matter, we will restore it. Are you ok with that? Tadija (talk)

I agree. Thanks! :) Tadija (talk)

AfD nomination of Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics

An article that you have been involved in editing, Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed

The speedy was declined for the same reason as I deproded the article. If you do take it to AfD, I will quote the edit summary by the admin. See if that influences the discussion. And copyright violations are not an issue if you quote parts of a work and give appropriate credit. I believe it is called the fair use doctrine, or something close to that. But if you feel it is copyright vio, go ahead - tag it. But my gut tells me you just don't like the idea that someone disagrees with you. Postcard Cathy (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Always aim to please. But if you truly believe it is to be deleted, you would be spending the time making AfD instead of talking to me. Postcard Cathy (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you came to me first and all I wasn't accusatory at all. I just asked you to do what you said you would do - take it to AfD and copyvio tag the article. If you don't want to do it, don't. But if you still believe you are right, than go ahead. I am agreeing with you. Those are the best ways to reach a consensus. I am ending my part of the conversation here because I don't really see it going anywhere. AfD/copyvio or not....... It is up to you. Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My gosh, he said he won't write on my page but he did! Anyhow, see, I was right! As someone once told me a few years ago, before you jump to conclusions about an article, do some research yourself. As you found out yourself, articles are often incomplete and what looks like a nn article turns out to be notable. Now please, keep your word and don't write on my page anymore.Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, and my gosh, I did that after you kept posting to my talk page despite my request not to do so. I guess you just must have the last word. I respond here now, because I will not go back to your talk page and you seem to remove there any message that is even slightly critical of you. Yes, You Were Right in deprodding the article, but for the wrong reason. The reference you found did not establish notability under WP:ACADEMIC, because a Dean is explicitly mentioned as not being inherently notable. So this time you just were lucky that the Vice-Chancellorship popped up. If that hadn't been the case, this stub would have wasted a lot of people's time at AfD. You're welcome to paste a response here to have the last word, I am discontinuing this thread. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

George Zinkhan

Please see my comments coming soon on the talk pages of the re-directs you created. SriMesh | talk 18:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Johnson

Hi, still having problems with this article. Presumably the same person as last time as it's the same sort of editing pattern I think? Seems a shame as I thought all the nonsense was at an end. Anyway I don't want to end up doing too many reverts etc so would appreciate it if you could take a look. Once again thanks for helping the last time around.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

General Syndics

I have noticed that you have written that I do not have included the name of the source of my article about the General Syndics of Andorra. I have done that: Rulers.org is my source.

Mbakkel2 talk)17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tamsin Wilton edit

Thanks for all your help, I have commented out minor refs and reorganised into topic areas, but without breaks & removed the LGBT stub. Mish (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to accusations

Hello, I have never been attacked before on a page, so I wasn't sure where to put my response, should it not have been put in the deletion page. Should i just delete both bobyflay's accusations and my response from the page? to a wiki gnome or admin i would be considered an occasional editor but i was basically being accused of being someone who never edited the wiki, referred by some track site to run a muck on wiki just to benefit the derrick page and i thought it undermined my contributions to the wiki in general, even if i don't have thousands of edits. I have no idea where his comment came from (to me it was way out of left field) my guess is that some website had referred people to the article in general (in fact now i know this is true because i recently visited said website out of suspicion when this comment was mentioned), and then i guess he just made the conclusion that because i edited wp:athlete i was one of those people, I really don't have a clue. I think deleting both of our comments is a reasonable solution, I don't want that one up there though without my response there too. I just thought deleting comments was frowned upon on the wiki, I don't usually get involved with controversial edits so I have no experience with the etiquette on deletion pages.Im going to delete the comments and if you think there is a better solution, you can revert. MATThematical (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Identifying SPAs

Thank you for identifying SPAs, its quite useful to the wiki and the admin who will read the page in the end to make his decision in general. However, you mis identified one. Jasonbholden is clearly not an SPA how it is defined on the SPA page. He has edited pages that are unrelated to running in general. I assume that this was an honest mistake, and that the reason you identified him was that he didn't have a user page, which probably set off a red flag. I have found that the best way to identify whether someone is an SPA or not, is to look at the contribution link next to their name in the history page. Hope this helps you in the future, so you can improve your accuracy. If this was not the reason why you identified him please let me know and we can discuss it further. But i assume it was a mistake. Thanks again for the SPA tagging, no one wants a bunch of non-editors to spam the board with comments because they were told to by some other site :) --MATThematical (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thanks!

You are so welcome :-), enjoy editing Maen. K. A. (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, WT:WikiProject Academic Journals#Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. If you reply, reply there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Algebra & Number Theory move

Hello. You seem to have moved Algebra & Number Theory to Algebra and Number Theory, citing style guidelines. Is this correct? The official title of the journal (the one on the website and printed on the cover) has an ampersand in it, so should that be the primary version of the page instead? We discussed this issue a while back on Talk:Geometry & Topology and the consensus seemed to be in favour of the ampersand form, but if you can point to a definitive statement somewhere in the style guidelines then that'd be great. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I couldn't find anything definitive in the style guidelines and wondered if we'd missed something during the G&T discussion. Best wishes -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Publishers have the infuriating habit of switching these things back and forth frequently, typically considering it a question of page design, not bibliographic identification. It was once worse: until 1960s, libraries expanded all abbreviations and filed under the way the word would sound when spoken, "&" being considered as "and" or "et" or "und" according to the language of the title. Some lists simply omitted all abbreviation and conjunctions. The classicists still use a set of 3 or 4 letter coded abbreviations. DGG (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Elementary schools

If there's no article for the district, why not make one? or merge to the town. I've removed the prods. DGG (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicrophorus cadaverinus

Hi...sorry for any confusion and I appreciate your attempt to learn what's going on; I'd be happy to explain, since I was the one who created stubs for most of the Nicrophorus articles and redirects for their synonyms (although as you have pointed out, I did a poor job of doing so...if you have time to help clean them up, go for it, since I'm pressed for time and have other projects).

Let me try to explain this as simply as possible.

In 1807, Johann Ludwig Christian Gravenhorst described what he thought was a new species. It was later discovered that this species was identical to Nicrophorus vespillo, described by Linnaeus in 1758.

Same thing happened for the other two, different scientists, different years, different species.

   * Nicrophorus vestigator, misidentified as a new species in 1840 by Mareuse

   * Nicrophorus germanicus, misidentified as a new species in 1857 by Gistel

Somehow, each scientist chose the same epithet. Go figure. Today, no Nicrophorus exists with that epithet, probably to avoid confusion. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll see how many of the other N. articles I can fix up matching these that were just fixed; thanks for being observant! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

blp-recently deceased

Hey, I noticed this edit and it piqued my curiosity. Can you provide a link to the relevant rules regarding recently deceased. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Guillaume2303. You have new messages at Brewcrewer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Guillaume2303. You have new messages at Jtalan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am confused about the conflicts of interest on this page. there does not seem to be anything that is pointing to libel or representing something that dr. gregersen is not. can you help? We have the same problem with kevin tracey's page. Thanks. Jamie Talan

Robert Manley

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R.O.B._Manley Not sure the naming convention is appropriate for an author who always published under the name R.O.B., rather than Robert? I Cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currer_Bell --Lord Manley (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Currer Bell redirects to Charlotte Brontë, which seems to parallel R.O.B. Manley and Robert Manley. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Renewed interest in Mixed model

See discussion here. Best, Btyner (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Manley

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R.O.B._Manley Not sure the naming convention is appropriate for an author who always published under the name R.O.B., rather than Robert? I Cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currer_Bell Lord Manley

• Currer Bell redirects to Charlotte Brontë, which seems to parallel R.O.B. Manley and Robert Manley. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, it was a terrible (and wrong) example. Try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._C._Fields
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_G_Grace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.E._Johns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells

And numerous other authors who published under their initials. R.O.B. Manley is a hugely famous bee keeper - Robert Manley is unheard of. Please revert.

Talk:Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

Could you please add your comments there as your name has been brought into a rather heated debate. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra

Kudos for tackling this -it's a real mess and needs a lot of work. I will do some of it if I get time, but the only time I get at the moment seems to be in bursts of about ten minutes - which is not enough! pablo_hablo. 09:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a mess is rather generous... Still, the editor that created this article and does most of the editing seems to be fairly new, so I try not to scare him away by going slowly and not doing a complete slash job, even though that is what is needed here... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I know - he's certainly enthusiastic, and you can't complain about lack of detail!  pablo_hablo. 11:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Heineken Prizes speedy deletion

If, as you say in the edit summary, there are two similarly-named prizes, perhaps it might be more appropriate to create a disambiguation page at Heineken Prize (which is currently a redirect to Dr. A.H. Heineken Prize) and leave Heineken Prizes (plural) deleted. You don't need admin intervention to do this, except for deleting Heineken Prizes, which I've done. Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 15:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - you're more familiar with the subject matter than I! Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament

Gregory and von Soden used this book for further work. It is is still in using, even now. Scrivener added to the list of NT mss. about 1000 new manuscripts (Scholz gave 619 mss). The manuscripts are listed in this book. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What you want to change in this article. "Monumental", "very important" - that is the truth. It was used important point in the history of Textual Criticism. Not so important like books of Gregory, von Soden, or Aland, but it was important. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Those are peacock words if ever I saw any... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

Very nice of you to recognize my newbie status and not kick me off the site for my mistakes. Vandalism was never my intention and I apologize if this made work for you administrators. If you have time for another question: When might a user become "confirmed" enough to upload photos? I got an email confirmation of my registered-user status, but evidently that doesn't give me posting privileges for photos. And if you know of a good hard-copy guide to Wikipedia I'd be so grateful to hear of it; I'm not much of a page navigator... In the meantime I'll go to the sandbox next time I have anything noteworthy to add. Fav fapal (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin... :-) Your contribution was an addition to an article about an Aussie company, but your text was about a very different person and also looked more like a personal attack or an article in a tabloid paper. However, given that you're new, I assumed that you are not familiar yet with WP standards, so I didn't do anything else (like reporting it to a real admin, for instance :-). I was short on time yesterday, so I did not put anything else on your talk page except the "welcome" template with some tips. I'm afraid that there is not a hard-copy guide to WP and relevant policies are sometimes hard to find if you don't already know them. To upload files and such, you need to be "autoconfirmed", which goes pretty rapidly (4 days and a minimum of 10 edits). If you're unsure about something, place the {{helpme}} tag on your talkpage and somebody will come around to give a hand, or ask someone you know (like me). Hope this helps. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this how I communicate with you?

I started revising the Dominance article because it repeats many of the same mistakes my students do. 'Dominance' is always a relationship between alleles. The notion of a 'dominant phenotype' is one that gets everybody in trouble: the student supposes that 'dominant' refers to the phenotype being the "wild type", or stronger, or better, or normal, or more common, or darker, etc., than the recessive, when it fact none of those things make a difference. Students also suppose dominance or recessiveness to be intrinsic properties of alleles: a friend calls them 'merely a typographic convention." I have been asked if there is something 'wrong' with frozen 'green wrinkled' peas. Given my druthers, I would never use semi- or incomplete dominance, and I would accept your usage of talking about additive effects across multiple loci, which are of course epistatic and not dominant. I can in fact do my entire lecture on phenylketonuria without using the words dominant and recessive even once. We're forced to use them, mostly because human genetic disease is still talked about that way.

I have a number of references to OMIM addresses, and will add them as soon as I figure out the citation conventions. Would it be kosher to use external references to various of my single-page examples in my on-line teaching notes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcewincarr (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Warnings, etc

Please accept my apologies for the warning I placed here earlier. I was rash and projecting onto you the behaviour of others, etc. I hope we can move on and become good editing colleagues. Yours, Verbal chat 15:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

h-index

Instead of simply tagging the article with multiple issues, could you use the talk page to provide specific guidance on parts of the article that you believe need fixing? Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How I see things

Since you commented on my style, I guess I wish to explain myself (in case this isn't all obvious).

These three articles demonstrate what's probably both good and bad about my style:

• Einstein and Religion
• William G. Pollard
• Physicist and Christian

The Einstein and Religion article was one of my first contributiosn to the religion and science area of encyclopedia. In this article I tried to be extremely careful to avoid doing anything wrong (especially no original research). The comments it generated at AFD had an effect on me. For at least one other editor honestly thought I had done something not quite right.

What I learned here: This led me to being way, way more relaxed about things. Even if one is extremely careful (as your edits clearly are), strange comments about one's actions will nevertheless still be made. I now work on things that really interest me and don't worry too much about being misunderstood. Perhaps someone under their own name doesn't have the luxury of such a perspective, but then again WP:BE BOLD and WP:5P applies to you too.

Things that have happened My more relaxed view of things got me into trouble now and then, here and there. Lately though I think I've avoided doing anything too terrible. My more relaxed view also led me to a broader view, resulting in these articles Physicist and Christian and William G. Pollard. These articles were fascinating to research and create. (I have no illusions. They can be improved, containing things which can be changed for the better. Still, they give us deeper insights into the religion and science discipline, which until they were created, were lacking.

Kind of alone I have yet to find anyone else that is deeply and profoundly interested in religion and science article creation. There are several interested in criticism (article mergers, tagging, etc.) and several who appreciate such articles (reading them, making a few touch ups), but none who seem to have a love of the subject. Those who create articles about Pollard or say Randy Isaac. Discovering the importance of people like Pollard and Isaac, apart from the research, is quite difficult, but also quite rewarding. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• There's no need for you to justify yourself. I don't know a single editor who is perfect (myself obviously included :-). It would be truly extraordinary if someone couldn't find anything to improve in articles you make. In a sense, I understand Hrafn a little bit: For a while I also belonged to the taggers and criticizers. But my life really got more pleasant when I stopped doing that and started concentrating on improving content instead of deleting it and avoiding getting into fights with anonymous overaggressive adolescents (not implying that this applies to Hrafn, of course, just in general)... (Not that I still don't do any speedies/PRODs/AfDs from time to time, but much less: for instance, I do occasional new-page patrolling and do that from the back of the unpatrolled backlog. Most" speediable" trash has by then been weedied out and most of the articles I see in that way only need some formatting or an occasional "refimprove" tag. And if I like a subject and can spare the time, I might do that improving myself. In any case, I do feel that you are being harassed, so if you want to make a case out of it, you have my support. Let's hope that the remarks that several admins placed on Hrafn's talkpage result in him leaving you alone or toning down. As for the bio that you created for me, I think his behavior was incorrect. From the stub, that wikilinked to the G2B journal article, it was clear that I am an editor in chief and hence meet WP:PROF. Slamming a notability tag was unwarranted, 30 secs of clicking would have given him the reference and he could have added it himself instead of starting to yell on the talk page of a BLP. I have a goopd reputation in my field, I can do without a bio with such a talk page. Fortunately, enough people agreed to get it deleted. But rest assured that I do not think for a second that this mess was you fault and appreciate that you tried to create a bio about me! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatric Genetics (journal)

I moved the page back. I couldn't figure out why I moved it in the first place but then I saw this which was in the deleted version, now restored. I have no real opinion on the matter but it appears that consensus, from Talk:Modern Theology (journal), is that it should have the disambiguation title. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Eur J Pharmacol.

But there's no use of that link anywhere on Wikipedia other than in those bot dumps (see what links here). The reason it exists is because some pages uses a particular reference style (citations with period) such as in {{cite journal | author = Francken BJ, Jurzak M, Vanhauwe JF, Luyten WH, Leysen JE. | title = The human 5-ht5A receptor couples to Gi/Go proteins and inhibits adenylate cyclase in HEK 293 cells. | journal = Eur J Pharmacol. | volume = 361 | issue = 2-3 | pages = 299-309 | year = 1998 | pmid = 9865521 }} It's a redirect which is the equivalent of Frank Sinatra., Science., or Soup., not a legitimate redirect. I hope that clarifies. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

{{db-blanked}}? Don't you mean {{db-r3}}? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, you were the creator of the redirect.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD/Axel Dreher

I have left a comment at Qwfp's talk page and would appreciate your insights too. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Je verzoek op mijn overlegpagina (nl:User talk:Niels)

Beste Guillaume2303, zou je een verzoek willen indienen op de algemene verzoekpagina, nl:WP:VHA? Op die manier is eea ook in de toekomst terugvindbaar (ik zal het dan zsm uitvoeren). Alvast bedankt. Niels^{? en | nl} 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Je verzoek is uitgevoerd. Let op dat de account nl:User:Guillaume2303 nog wel aan je global login gekoppeld moet worden (via Special:MergeAccount. Niels^{? en | nl} 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming IP users

Do not welcome a new IP user. For he/she is often NOT a new editor. Who do you think you are anyway? You're annoying with your welcoming -- that's for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.72.156 (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra

Hi, I had added a tag for speedy deletion of Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra. Please note that the page was created and maintained by what I strongly feel, is the person's own son or close relative, tikoo_s. Next, how do you ascertain that the person Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra passes the notability test? SDas (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Guillaume2303, I am not outing an editor. That he most likely the son of R. P. Mohapatra was discovered by (as I recall) a user in Dec 2007, (I think Fconaway), based on links provided by tikoo S himself and a simple google search, showing a matching last name Mohapatra (which BTW is very uncommon).

Tikoo S has added cites to unknown works of R. P. Mohapatra to many different articles, such as Bhubaneswar, Kharavela, Udayagiri and Khandagiri Caves, Lingaraj Temple, Parsurameswar Temple, Kalinga War.

The references are to non-peer reviewed articles, some dating back to the 80s. Frankly it is a headache to meticulously go through the articles, and remove the links.

You should know better - you are the editor of a journal yourself, and I am sure also an accomplished academic. Does a few dozen insignificant research papers, and some books published by unknown publishers qualify the person to be an encyclopedic entry? Memorial lectures can be be made through relatively small donations. This is a lot simpler in Orissa than in the USA or France because of PPP.

I am an academic myself, and as I am also from Orissa, I can easily see what is going on. Nevertheless, I am not saying that the article on R. P. Mohapatra be necessarily deleted. Can't one at least discuss that option?

Lastly, my main concern is removing the irrelevant citations from a dozen or so wikipedia entries. There are 100s of more relevant, more recent, and better scholarly papers that can be cited in each of those articles.

Please advise me what to do.

Thanks,

SDas (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have responded on your talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume2303 --Guillaume2303 (talk), Thanks for the help in updating and making the article more nice. Actually I am moving and in transit now. I will certainly look into the article once I get some breathing time after my move. I am not able to regularly loggin to WP for the time bieng. Meantime I trully appreciate all the constructive work you put in. I will discuss more on my return. --Tikoo s (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work.

Your edits to the sexology journal pages are much appreciated. — James Cantor (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

JLT

Thanks for your help with the Journal of Literary Theory. German Wikipedia seems to have no problems with the notability. If nobody else does, I will create a new version as soon as I find time (and as soon as JLT is listed with MLA). How do you recommend to use the sandbox, i.e. how do I propose an article without actually publishing it? About your criteria for journal notability: I find it hard to apply them to journals in the humanities, where credibility does not come in numbers (yet) and I am not sure if Worldcat does the job. I will keep trying to understand what makes an article worth being included in Wikipedia - I am honestly confused on this point! Keep up the work on the journal notability list, I think it is much needed! Thanks again, Charlotte Lennox (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

impact factor etc.

I want to thank you for doing such an excellent job with this & related scientific information articles. I feel a little guilty I've left them in this unsatisfactory a state so long. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Michael Flanagan (murderer)

Hello Guillaume2303, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Michael Flanagan (murderer) - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 01:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD:Tolga Yarman

Hello Guillaume2303. Can you comment, give your opinion on the deletion of Tolga Yarman here? You can also see from the article's discussion pages, he is also a contributor to the article and tried to put his fringe theory on relativity, this was blocked by some users and me and for obvious reasons he does not meet WP:PROF criteria. Aadagger (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter James Knight

Hi. I'd like Peter James Knight to go through AfD, so I've nominated it pro forma. As to Lee Torney, it's not a very good article. If it's deleted, I suggest it be redirected to Melbourne gangland wars. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from George David Silva

Hello Guillaume2303, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to George David Silva has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(6 victims is enough to be probably notable.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

AfD nomination of List of autostereotypes by nation

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of autostereotypes by nation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autostereotypes by nation (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikipeditor (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from International Journal of Learning

Hello Guillaume2303, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to International Journal of Learning has been removed. It was removed by Headbomb with the following edit summary '(indexed in ASSIA, which looks like "major" indexing service to me)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Headbomb before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Anubias on pl.wiki

I edit only Polish wikipedia and I do not know principles from other language versions.

In Polish wikipedia we add to bibliography only such publications which were used to prepare article. In other cases reader is mislead that article represent knowledge from publications. In fact it may contain original research or information taken from another sources. So, because of principles it is rather not allowed to add bibliographic footnote to article as you did (except when article in fact presents systematics and list of species originnaly publicated in your papers). It would be possible only if you were changed or completed article according to knowledge from these publications. It is not recommended also to add list of additional publications at the end of article, which were not used to prepare of article. We add sometimes links to the Internet pages which presents more deep information about subject of article, but in this cases publications are not accessible on Internet. Sorry for my english. Kenraiz (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from African Journal of Applied Zoology and Environmental Biology

Hello Guillaume2303, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to African Journal of Applied Zoology and Environmental Biology has been removed. It was removed by Headbomb with the following edit summary '(deprod and update links and whatnots)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Headbomb before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Working on recreating “Race and crime”.

I’m posting this comment on the discussion pages of several users who were involved in editing the article Race and crime before it was merged into Anthropological criminology, to let all of you know that I’m working on recreating the Race and crime article. My current draft for it can be found here. I would appreciate help from any of you with two things related to this:

1: RegentsPark, the admin who protected the redirect from Race and crime to Anthropological criminology, has suggested that the statistical information in this article should be better-integrated into the portion of it that discusses how these statistics can be interpreted. I would appreciate help with improving this aspect of the article, or any other aspects of it that you think could be improved.

2: RegentsPark has let me know here that he won’t be willing to unprotect the article himself, no matter how much it’s improved, so if I would like it to be unprotected I should propose this at WP:RFPP. I’ve proposed there that it be unprotected, but the admin who responded (User:Camaron) stated that without RegentsPark’s approval, I would need to first obtain a consensus that the article should be recreated. If you think the article does not require any additional improvements, and is good enough to be recreated in its current state, I would appreciate you making your opinion about this known on the draft’s discussion page, so that we can begin to create a consensus for this.

Thanks in advance. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome in my talk page! - MexicanFish (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Animal Biology (journal)

Hello! Your submission of Animal Biology (journal) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bolding

The Manual of style says Boldface (text like this) is used to separate the article name from ordinary text. It is typically used in the first paragraph of an article, used with proper names and common terms for the article topic, including any synonyms and acronyms. Note including any synonyms. The Record of Zoological Literature redirects to The Zoological Record. The article is equally about them both. --Bejnar (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I stand corrected :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

See stub BIOSIS. --Bejnar (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Great, thanks! Had been planning to do that for a long time! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Liptov Baldspotted Rabbit

Hello! I have noticed that you have improved my article Liptov Baldspotted Rabbit Can you translate it into French and Dutch? Thank you. Skrabbit (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but translating really is not my thing. To start with, I wouldn't even know the proper name of this rabbit breed in those two languages. You'd better ask somebody more knowledgeable about rabbits. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Voyager One from Space: 1999

I have updated the article on Voyager One (Space: 1999) fictional spacecraft from the TV series Space: 1999 per your general notability guideline tag. I believe this is a very notable article due to the time-frame in which this particular episode aired and the launch of the actual Voyager 1 spacecraft may confuse people seeing the episode. It is also good to note the Star Trek: The Motion Picture film which uses the same plot as this episode and people in general do not now the full story behind the actual Voyager program. --Samsonfest (Samsonfest) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that you misunderstand what notability is about. The article has absolutely no independent sources. There is no indication that this episode fulfills the basic requirement: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only "references" in the article are to other WP articles, which is absolutely insufficient. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• I have referenced the Catacombs page in this article now, a very extensive guide on this vehicle which all of this information was pulled from and hopefully will be sufficient. --Samsonfest (Samsonfest) 21:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a reference but an external link and in any case does not demonstrate any notability at all: this is not an independent source. Are there any references that demonstrate that this vehicle had any notability outside of the Space 1999 universe? By the way, could you please sign your comments (click on the signature icon at the top of the edit window. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Scholar

Hi Guillaume2303,

I just wanted to share some info regarding the journal The Christian Scholar. It's mentioned several times in the book [2]. In fact, it's mentioned by name up to 35 times there. The journal is also discussed in another book The University Gets Religion. Anyway, I think the journal is actually notable. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Even if those 35+ mentions in that book could be counted as separate citations (and they cannot), 35 is really an extremely low number for an academic journal. The Christian Scholar is clearly much less notable than Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith and we weren't able to keep that one, so I think TCS is basically hopeless. Best to keep it as a redirect. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is major coverage of The Christian Scholar in the book with up to 35 cites. WP:RS can be satisfied more obviously and directly. The journal is important. The problem with PSCF is that no one wants to get into an edit war with "objectivity" warriors who think they are smarter and more objective than God. If only I could be half as smart as they think they are. :-) --Firefly322 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't agree. PSCF is of marginal notability. I think it is over the bar, but I can see how others might not agree. We have recently developed notability criteria for academic journals and once those get established more firmly, I intend to take PSCF to AfD as a procedural nomination, because it meets those requirements for notability. TCS doesn't. As I said above, this is not 35 citations, it's one book. That really is not going to impress anybody. As far as I see, TCS does not meet any notability criteria. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So according to these new criteria regardless of the existence of two books of first-rate scholarship that significantly discuss a journal (in this case, The Christian Scholar) that journal remains unnotable? In regards to the significance of a topic on which to base an article the existence of scholarship on a topic always trumps whatever criteria or policy is available (not to say that such criteria can't be used in the absence of first tier WP:RS such as these.) You honestly think otherwise? --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. Because of these two books--written by two different, well-respected historians--The Christian Scholar easily passes criteria 3: "The journal has served some sort of historic purpose or has a significant history." No? --Firefly322 (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a third scholar mentioning the journal, which provides clear evidence that scholars are well aware of this journal and consider it historically significant. Samuel S. Hill (evidence) --Firefly322 (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a fourth book (see page 309 n.13) that discusses the journal Princeton in the nation's service: religious ideals and educational practice. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. This would not even be sufficient to show notability of one single academic, let alone an academic journal. The obscure ones get hundreds of citations, others go into the tens of thousands. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What? The truth is this journal's coverage in major WP:RS sources is far greater than most. I would say that any objective evaluation would put it in the top 20% of journals for available referanceable source material. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• You mention just two books that mention this journal. That doesn't establish any notability at all as it is vastly insufficient. If it is in the top 20% of journals (all of them? You probably mean in a certain category, such as theology journals), you will need much better sources than just that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

These are two decades-spanning historical analyses: the main one is published by well-respected now retired Columbia University professor. Things that get covered a lot (which this journal did) in such a historial investigation demonstrates that a journal is notable. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, according to Douglas M. Sloan the The Christian Scholar's rise and fall is a general indicator (weather vane) of the activities of a lot of major maine-line scholars whose activities were funded by major organizations such as the Danforth Foundation. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Create a new count

I'm a wikipedist in the Spanish WP (es:). Sometimes, I translate an article from English WP to Spanish WP, and, of course, I add interwiki in both. Do you think it's necessary to create a new count for doing that? Thank you for your advices. 79.156.200.84 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I guess you refer to a welcome template that I must have put on your user page. If I encounter an IP editor with an empty talk page, I always put such a template there. If all you do is add interwikilinks, then you don't really need an account here. However, if you go to your "preferences", you can opt to have your account be global. As long as your username is not in use elsewhere, that means that you get that username on all wikipedias. I did this a while ago and it is very convenient: you don't have to log in/out, when you go to a different wiki, you're immediately logged in under your global account name. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Afrika-Studiecentrum

Beste Guillaume2303, De references en sources van het lemma Afrika-Studiecentrum, Leiden in de Engelse wikipedia zijn allemaal Nederlandse bronnen: een stuk of dertig jaarverslagen (vanaf 1948) en het boek van Max de Bok: Leer mij Afrika kennen: vijftig jaar Afrika-Studiecentrum (Leiden, 2000). ISBN 90-5448-040-8. Ik dacht dat het weinig zinnig was om die in het Engelse lemma te vermelden (en ongebruikelijk). Vergis ik me? Joseph Damen —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephDamen (talk • contribs) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Het ligt eraan. De Engelse WP wordt geacht de "wereld WP" te zijn en de taal waarin een bron is gesteld hoeft niet noodzakelijkerwijze Engels te zijn. De enige voorwaarde voor een artikel is WP:N, als daaraan voldaan is, dan is er geen probleem. Of het Afrika Centrum hieraan voldoet kan ik niet goed beoordelen, dus heb ik het artikel alleen maar een beetje opgeschoond. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Aan het aantal links binnen en buiten Wiki zal het niet liggen, vermoed ik. De meeste vermeldingen zaten er al in; ik hoefde alleen maar de link aan te brengen. JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephDamen (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Shill and Puppet

It is obvious from your biased and prejudiced edits of my wiki entries that you are a sold-out shill for the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately for me, you carry too much weight with Wikipedia management, and so your campaign of cover-up will prevail. Durwoodie (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Too bad the pharmaceutical industry is not paying me, I guess I'm a cheap sold-out. I am reporting this personal attack. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

MDD's edits

• I assumed they were just paying you in drugs. Actually, I wanted to direct your attention to the activities of a very productive (the word has very peculiar ramifications in his case) editor that you've had at least one unpleasant interaction with, see talk, if you can stand it. That users' remarks to you, and the way he reacted to your response, are typical of a broad-based behavior problem that's very hard to describe in specific terms. One of the more disagreeable aspects of his case is that editors like yourself have had to attempt improvements on articles that most probably started out with blatant copyright violations to begin with. I've been trying to help reduce the number of problems (which he has kept reintroducing in increasingly convoluted ways) but there are problems of comprehension there that are really frustrating to deal with. One aspect is his unreliable grasp of the English language. I see from your page that you're fluent in Dutch. He's a Dutch speaker as it happens, and he keeps referring to alleged "standards" and so forth that seem partly derived from whatever experience (another word with peculiar implications here) he's had in Dutch wiki world. Maybe ... well. At this point I don't know who might be able to help in which ways with what. There are, in my opinion, substantial questions about the notability of the various topics he's staked out his ground on, and since I see you work with such issues in regard to academic journals, you might find things to work with in that area too. (I've been hoping the size of the issue might magically go away with just a mass "stubifying" of the more redundant or under-supported works, if that makes any sense. I'm very new dealing with all this) Any contribution you might make to this tangled situation is appreciated. Thanks Bacrito (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• and as you can see from the fact that I can't even manage to properly insert a link to the talk page I mentioned, I'm too clueless with basic mechanics here to be trying to cope with another editor's apparent cluelessness in other areas. The page I meant to link to is Sjaak Brinkkemper. Bacrito (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• PPS and by all means reply on my talk page, or even move my whole comment over there, if it's more convenient for you. Bacrito (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks (I guess :-) for bringing this to my attention. Mdd has his own standards and imposes them on Wikipedia. As you noted, I had a run in with this overly-aggressive person a while ago. He seems to be incapable of assuming good faith in others and I am glad that someone is taking notice of the problems he has been creating. I am sure that several of the bios he created are not notable. However, I have enough things to do elsewhere and really don't feel like diving into this battle (or interacting again with Mdd). Sorry. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problem at all. I completely understand. Anyway, I phrased all that badly. The bottom line is, there are lots of copyvios in lots of articles being fixed (or not) -- many of the attempted fixes are by Mdd himself, and the situation is so tangled that attempts to fix problems with his contributions have inevitably caused fresh problems for some editors with their contributions --so if any of this does mess up work you've already done, you know what to expect. The article I cited does in fact need to be part of the cleanup process, so Mdd may make an appearance on this page anyway in an attempt to notify you/ask for help -- just like I did, actually. :-) Your utmost forbearance with him if he does is appreciated. He's trying (maybe too hard) Thanks for your time. Bacrito (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David A. Kaiser

An article that you have been involved in editing, David A. Kaiser, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Kaiser. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DAB and "See also"

FYI: MOS:DAB does allow for the appropriate use of a "See also" section - please double-check the bottom of the guideline page. Thanks. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)