User talk:Cayte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:


ClockworkTroll 03:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Clubfungi.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Clubfungi.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enteric nervous system

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Enteric nervous system. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you!

I understand that this information is very useful and is true, but as stated at WP:V, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If you can provide reliable sources for this entry/edits, I have to problem with them. If you have further questions about this, feel free to ask me. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I apologize; any edit may be removed that lacks a source based on WP:V#Burden of evidence, but I may have jumped the gun. I have no problem with you enter the information back in the with proper citation or adding it in with some {{fact}} tags. Again, please don't let this deter your Wikipedia contributions. If you have further questions on this, or any other aspect of Wikipedia, feel free to ask. Cheers again! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Line-by-line citation isn't what I am looking for, as long as a paragraph is cited. Also, WP:V states that the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit. You can't just post something and then say "let someone else look it up ... until then, it stays!" -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing images on Pi bond

In your images Image:Pi-bond.png, Image:No-pi-bond.png, and Image:Sigma-bond.png, what do the grey lines represent what do the grey boxes on some of those lines represent? DMacks 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links on ballet

Hello! External links are often taken as a "For further reading" section, and as such, should complement the article, adding information we could not. As for ballet terminology, Wikipedia has a Glossary of ballet, and as we are working to create free content, it is more beneficial for us to create a better repository of terms and their meanings than to link to a copyrighted collection. Similarly, we shouldn't be linking to content which we should have, or which is only marginally related (physics of all dance is only marginally related to ballet). However, if you meant to reference a section, there's a different method of going about this documented at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The links used would be contained in a ==References== section, and it'd especially help if you could indicate which facts were verified and which weren't. The Ballet article is currently undergoing a rewrite, and any help you could offer would be appreciated (see the talk page and WikiProject Ballet's article improvement page for more information on what needs doing). --Keitei (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial reference not

You wrote: "The following reference contains a journal of clinical studies not adverts. It is available on sciencedirect.com, a site of Elsevier. Elsevier is a publisher of science articles. I don't see how it could be construed as commercial except on the assumption that ANY studies of aromatherapy must be commercially rather than scientifically motivated. But that would be POV wouldn't it?

Also the directory contained links to research orgs, only some were commercial"

I'm not quite clear on which edit of mine you're refering to, but when I go to the link above, I get to a page where I must pick an article to look at. When I do so, I land, for example, here, which wants $30 to let me view the article, unless I am a registered user. I would call that commercial. Perhaps you are a subscriber, and are therefore unaware of the charge? If I am missing something here, please enlighten me. Thanks, -- 01:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, was the "directory" you're referring to http://www.oilganic.com/associations-research-trade.htm? My problem with that link is twofold-- one, it contains a link, top right, to a page that sells books. Secondly, it is a directory, something that Wikipedia is not. You might want to read over Wikipedia's External links guideline. Essentially, it takes a fairly extraordinary link to qualify as an external link (though you'll certainly see plenty of links in place that don't live up to the guideline). Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 01:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your statement that there are free abstracts available. If I click on the link above, click on the Full Abstracts tab, check the first article, and then click on Selected Articles, I end up here, which is nowhere. Am I doing something wrong? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahah! I finally went back to the actual edit of mine that you're referring to, and I now see what you're talking about. It's confusing because the first two entries don't have abstracts, the third does but it's an empty page, the next few have abstracts but they don't amount to much, finally down at the sixth article we get an abstract worth looking at, and from there on they look pretty good. It's too bad all the weaker ones are up front. Anyway, if you want to re-add that link, I won't revert it. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/y/User_talk%7ECayte_1c96.html"