User talk:Scientizzle

Directory:
Archives
March 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – February 2007
Contents 1 Swan Song edit 2 Wine articles 3 Re: 4 Deleting Grace Bonney and Design Sponge entry 5 from inhumandecency 6 Question 7 Transcription 8 Talk page clean-up 9 Thanks for looking after my talk page 10 sorry 11 Thank you 12 Frosty123456789 (talk • contribs) 13 Administrator nomination 14 Blocks & Socks 15 Sockpuppet 16 Socks & Blocks continued 17 Industry Revamp Theory 18 Thank you 18.1 Seek Recommendation 19 Page protection 20 Oy! 21 English? 22 Vandal! 23 My RfA 24 Global Warming & Greenhouse Effect 25 Thanks! 26 Ziggurat Magazine and Charles J. Haynes 27 RE: Great work 28 How do you know it isn't neccessary nonsense 29 Question about sources 30 Thank you very much for the answer!! 31 Award 32 Insightful commentary 33 User:Jordan Star Records 34 Richard Walter 34.1 Please help me deal with this vandal 34.2 False Content - Richard Walter site 34.3 LIBELOUS Content - Richard Walter site 34.4 Thank you for your help on - Richard Walter 35 Proposed merge of Dr. Doug Powell into Food Safety Network 36 Squirrel Tag 37 My talk 38 Ricky D. Purl 39 Thanks! 40 Tsyam 41 Hello 42 Thanks from Suncloud 43 Exsqueeze me? 44 RFA Thanks 45 My comments on Talk:The Wikipedians apparently warrant a warning. 46 db removal 47 Healing Cancer: The Top 12 Non-Toxic Cancer Treatments To Help You Beat Cancer (2005) 48 Loss of Innocence: War & Peace In The 21st Century (2007 film) 49 My RfA 50 I justed started a new article, Leptasterias pusilla, but I am concerned...

[edit] Swan Song edit

I just received a message from you regarding an edit to the swan song page that somehow was attributed to me. I am a very casual Wiki user and did a very small edit to one article a month or so ago but I have never opened the swan song article or certainly edited it. 12.99.114.130 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the warning I gave was for an edit done by someone at 12.99.114.130 (talk • contribs) on February 27. The editor that was using the IP address at the time blanked the page. I restored it and gave a standard warning. If you didn't do anything, don't worry. It happens all the time--people's IPs change. Have a good day! -- Scientizzle 05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wine articles

Hello, db? what does that mean? I will try to fix that article. Charleenmerced ^Talk 05:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

I've responded on you talk page with: "Sorry. :) "db" = speedy deletion. Too much jargon for my own good. -- Scientizzle 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"

[edit] Re:

Vandal Fighter often makes mistakes about new user contributions of that size. I also make mistakes sometimes, sorry about that. I have reverted it back to your original version. Sorry about the mess up. Mkdw^talk 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. Thanks for the response! -- Scientizzle 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Grace Bonney and Design Sponge entry

Hi

I created the entries and would like to have them removed because Administrators aren't doing a good job of keeping defamatory content off the page. The subject of the entries contacted me as well and ask me to remove them. I have requested Speedy Deletion because they have been constantly edited with personal attacks. I tried to blank the page all together and was told that my edit was considered "vandalous" (But in the FAQ on deletion it says that if a creator blanks a page it could be considered a request for deletion). Please let me know what I need to do to remove this entry all together from Wikipedia to prevent the defamation which is going on.

DesignReferencesDesignReferences

Unfortunately, vandalism is a constant, real problem on Wikipedia. Any editor that vandalizes an article is subject to warnings and possible block. I vandalism occurs, reversion to a prior version is appropriate.

If you really believe the page should be deleted, you should list it for deletion--following these instructions.

RE: the blanking of the page--the clause to which you are referring applies almost exclusively to new pages that have little-to-no edits from any editor other than the article creator. Your blanking is (reasonably) viewed as vandalism by any editor that is not privvy to your insider info & intent.

Rather than delete the content, perhaps it would be better to enlist administrator help. File a claim at WP:AN/I and tell them what is up. I'll try to help you as much as I can... -- Scientizzle 08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Grace_Bonney

This experience has left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. I don't know what was going on, but I feel like I've been made a bit of a jackass for trying to be helpful... -- Scientizzle 09:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scientizzle,

Thank you for your messages. Of course I was the one who put "Grace Bonney is a pirate who lives on the Isle of Man". I did it as a stop gap until I could figure out how to get through the deletion process because Grace Bonney wrote me and requested that I delete the file because it is constantly edited to have negative comments about her. When I blanked the page, no sooner had I finished doing so when the defamatory text was restored. I saw "Grace Bonney is a pirate..." as at least better than allowing text that insulted her and her work to stay. Thanks for your patience and instruction in helping me wade through this.

P.S. It was not at all my intention to get you in the middle of something that would draw such negativity as KP Botany's remark. I have been acting in good faith and admittedly out of ignorance of not knowing exactly how to get the ball rolling on deletion. I do appreciate your help greatly.

DesignReferences 12:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no issues with how you, User:Scientizzle handled anything, as you were attempting to handle the matter within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, while being polite. However, I did want you to notice that DesignReference was part of the problem by blanking the page and replacing it with defamatory comments about Grace Bonney. I apologize to you, Scientizzle, for my over the top tone about the matter. KP Botany 02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks. In truth, I should have better researched the matter before heading to AN/I... -- Scientizzle 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Scientizzle,

I am sorry that KP Botany chose to fly off the handle without first learning the facts. I am even more sorry that KP Botany does not have the professional demeanor and discretion of the others who got involved. I am glad that KP Botany at least acknowledged to you that his/her behavior was out of line and over the top. It does not however justify the accusations being made about me on various Talk Pages of Wikipedia. I hope that KP Botany does not return to make any more disparaging comments about other users of Wikipedia on your page and sorry once again that your good deed was punished by someone who had no idea what was going on and no interest in learning before attacking others. DesignReferences 14:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the message. KP Botany is right, however, that it's never okay to vandalize any article for any reason. In this case, you should not have added (potentially defamatory) nonsense to the page. There are several mechanisms we have around here to fight vandalism and the article should have simply been reverted to the last non-vandalized version. In particularly bad cases, admins can step in and protect pages and issue blocks to offenders. Since the article has been deleted, there's no way for me, a non-admin, to know the details that I don't recall off the top of my head about the article and its history. This leaves me at an impasse as to where I stand on the validity of the speedy deletion, the claims by the various parties, and how well I handled the situation (including what I could/should have done better). I've little interest in deletion review, though it may merit doing.

Finally, DesignReferences, let's just move on here. Don't get invloved with a feud with another editor, just contribute elsewhere on this project. If you're interested in design (as your user name suggests}, check out Category:Designers and improve some articles there. -- Scientizzle 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As always, I'm available to answer questions & offer advice.

Hi and thanks. I understand the issue at hand and have acknowledged my error and my ignorance of handling the issue. However, because I was asked by Grace Bonney to delete the entry, nothing I wrote could have been considered defamation, since it is Grace who decides what is defamatory about Grace, and not KP Botany, or Wikipedia. What editors continued to restore and allow to be posted was defamatory, however, not in my opinion, but in Grace's. I have contributed to several designers' profiles here without any problems whatsoever, and appreciate your encouragement to do so. Ignorant and aggressive editors, however, make visiting Wikipedia an unpleasant experience, even though the unpleasantness is significantly mitigated by editors like you, who are professional and do act in good faith. Thanks, over and out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DesignReferences (talk • contribs).

[edit] from inhumandecency

Thanks for the note re: NRSA. I'm glad to help! It seemed like a good way to start psyching myself up to apply for one.

I like the design on your userpage. I may swipe a few elements from it... Inhumandecency 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. I'm hoping to apply for one, myself...

Feel free to borrow any of the design elements--I basically tweaked some of what I liked at other users' pages and made it my own. -- Scientizzle 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Shkëmbi 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Hi Mr. Scientizzle, Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and asking me to write to you if I needed help. I have written an article on Tsyam, the mythological homeland of the Kalash people. Today, I made the last changes (I hope) to the article. In an earlier version, I saw a tag which said that the article needed to be categorized. After having edited it again, the tag disappeared, and the situation is the same as before the tag was placed. What am I supposed to do now? All the best Shkëmbi Eeemte (talk • contribs)

I've taken a look at the article an reapplied the {{categorize}} tag. That article will need sourcing in order to stay on Wikipedia. Please check out the relevant policies on verifiability and reliable sources. -- Scientizzle 03:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcription

A mutation within the protein coding sequence isn't generally expected to affect the synthesis of said gene's mRNA, but can certainly affect gene translation. If one considers the term "gene" to encompass all of the important non-coding sequences associated with each proteins's DNA coding sequence (promoter regions, splice sites, polyadenylation sites), then the answer is most certainly yes. -- Scientizzle 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

According to my 6/e Campbell, that stuff doesn't count as part of the gene, and our articles concur. Does that mean transcription would not be affected by a change in the genes? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't a Campbell laying around, but the gene article certainly lists the promoter as part of the gene, as well as the statement "Most genes contain non-coding regions that do not code for the gene products, but regulate gene expression". Truthfully, when most people say "gene" they really mean "coding sequence". A point mutation within the coding sequence on the DNA is fairly unlikely to cause a change in the transcription of that mRNA—but it's not impossible. We've only scratched the surface in terms of how expression is regulated. A point mutation may alter, say, a DNA methylation site (CpG site), changing the expression. (On a larger scale, see Fragile X syndrome). Some genes produce protein products that regulate their own expression and a point mutation altering the amino acid sequence could affect that interaction. If one does not restrict discussion to point mutations, but considers deletions, inversions, insertions and duplications, the odds are greater that a given alteration of the DNA sequence my affect transcription.

Outside of the protein-coding sequence, altering an initiation site, termination sequence, polyadenylation site or any number of regulatory, non-coding RNAs, could change mRNA expression of one or more genes. -- Scientizzle 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to my Campbell, it doesn't say anything definitive either way. And I actually meant "according to one of our articles", but unfortunately I can't remember which one, so we can't correct it. Thanks a lot! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -- Scientizzle 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page clean-up

Sigh. Now you've made it look like I vandalized my own talk page just to seem as if I was important;) Thanks for restoring the comments on my talk page--I've been using NavPop, but it was changed recently so that you can't select just the text you want. It was me, I was my own vandal, I didn't notice I'd done it, so thanks for cleaning it up.

It can be frustrating dealing with vandalism, especially when there are people who are otherwise well-meaning, but not wiki-savvy, involved. I met a great wiki editor (User:Acalamari, whose half sentence I appear to have deleted) when involved in a similar incident, with someone posting some poorly written low level biographies that needed clean-up. Acalamari tried to assist by cleaning up the article to wiki standards and got bitten badly for it, so did an admin who tried to help, so did I when I tried to help. Eventually, we got the articles to usable standards, while being called names and attacked for the efforts. The important thing to remember is that you're clean in this one, and Wikipedia, after claiming its place in cyberspace, is a great place for well-done low level biographies of the sort of living people who would not find themselves in Britannica. We live in a different world, and it's nice that it's so handy to find up-to-date and accurate information about people--eventually Wikipedia will be there thanks to its many contributors. KP Botany 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. This was certainly frustrating, if only because I felt like a complete noob even though I've been around for a year and over 7000 edits. -- Scientizzle 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for looking after my talk page

Hi. Thanks for reverting my talk page from "Johnny the Vandal". You might not be aware of this, but any user attacking both my user page and that of User:Hephaestos, or several groups (Crass, The Offspring, Social Distortion) are automatically assumed to be sockpuppets of the notorious vandal "Johnny the Vandal" and are to be permanently blocked from editing on sight. Use the {{sockblock|Johnny the Vandal}} template to leave a note on the talk page. Thanks, again! -- Arwel (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem about the reversion. I picked up on the JtV stuff, but I'll make sure to use the template in the future. -- Scientizzle 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

sorry about the Shorecrest page someone else logged on to our account and changed it themselves sorry—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihatesalad (talk • contribs).

[edit] Thank you

Hi, i just wanted to say thank you for the welcome you left on my talk page.CEP78 00:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Feel free to come on by if you ever have any questions. -- Scientizzle 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frosty123456789 (talk • contribs)

Noticed your warning and you were right. I've taken them to WP:RFCN, even though it's probably a throw-away account. Cheers. --EarthPerson 00:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. But you're right, probably a single-use troll account. Good luck! -- Scientizzle 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator nomination

No thanks. I'll wait for a real nomination from a non-trolling, non-sockpuppet. someone with more experience. -- Scientizzle 04:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks & Socks

Well, I deleted the admin request as vandalism. However, I would like to spend a little more time going over the different users edits before issuing a block or requesting a checkuser, and I probably won't get to that until tomorrow. Please leave a message on my talk page (or, better yet, e-mail me) if the user does anything obviously block-worthy in the meantime. Or you can report it on AIV, of course.

If you're interested in adminship, I can take a look at your edit history and give you some feedback on whether or not going up for RfA right now is a good idea. They say that RfA is a stressful process, but I think that warning should be accompanied by an animated gif of a guy's head exploding. This would take me some time, as I'm busy in "real life", but I'd be happy to help out. Let me know.

I'd also like to say that your user and talk pages are quite lovely. Did you design this yourself? -- Merope 03:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. No hurry on anything, take a look and maybe you can sort out more than I did.

As for admin stuff--yeah, I'm interested. I feel my year and 7000+ edits have me pretty ready. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback.

Finally, thanks for noticing the new look 'round here. I played with a few things that I found at other user pages and mashed some of them together. I kinda like it myself. -- Scientizzle 04:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted--CrazyBusLive-Online ^t _c 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

I know talk pages aren't meant to be used to actually 'talk', but was it really that obvious that it was me? By the way, the nomination wasn't a joke, I was just testing new things on Wikipedia, and I know someone you should be keeping an eye on. She's caled Ellez. --CrazyBusLive-Online ^t _c 12:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If the nomination wasn't a joke, I'm sorry for assuming it was. However, I'll wait to accept a nomination from a user with more experience...

To answer your question, it seems pretty obvious that this account is a sockpuppet. Please see WP:SOCK: socks used to evade a block or ban are no good. Since CrazyBusLive (talk • contribs) was indefinitely blocked, any sock of that account may face a similar punishment. If my suspicions are correct, and both CrazyBus accounts are socks of Andyroost (talk • contribs), then it is possible Andyroost could be blocked for creating and running at least one disruptive sock puppet account and another block-evading account.

That said, CrazyBusLive-Online (talk • contribs) has made some useful contributions (and no obvious vandal contributions), and I'd prefer not to lose any good contributions. If you're willing to clear this up...that is, ID this account as an alternate account for whomever, maybe there's an effective workaround that will keep any account from being blocked... -- Scientizzle 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. --CrazyBusLive-Online ^t _c 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socks & Blocks continued

Since CrazyBusLive-Online admitted to being CrazyBusLive and AndyRoost, I've blocked them all for improper use of sockpuppets ("Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it."). -- Merope 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just writing a message to you about it. There are some provisions within WP:SOCK that allow for alternate accounts, but your reasoning is solid. -- Scientizzle 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Industry Revamp Theory

I need help with my Industry Revamp Theory article. It’s something that I created from a neutral point of view of what's going on in the music industry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queen Amber Rice (talk • contribs).

I'll see what I can do, but I'm kinda busy in real life at the moment... -- Scientizzle 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hi Scientizzle. I appreciate your intervention. Earlier today I sent the following message to John Broughton:

[edit] Seek Recommendation

Hi John-

Could you please be so kind as to take a look at the contributions of Wham Bam No Thank You Spam [1]?

For almost a year one person has been systematically deleting all Source links that I made for articles that I started or, or on occasion, significantly expanded.

When I recently began restoring them, Wham Bam No thank You Spam suddenly appeared and began systematically and very quickly deleting the restorations:

*On 7 March he deleted 10 restorations within six minutes.

*On 8 March he deleted 17 restorations within 11 minutes.

*On 9 March he deleted 23 restorations within nine minutes.

The talk page explanations of why the Sources are not spam are apparently ignored. What do you recommend?

Many thanks. David Justin 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My talk page explanations are apparently ignored. Thanks again.David Justin 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

From the outside, it was one of the most impressive displays of edit warring I've ever seen (that's not a good thing). You both violated WP:3RR today, so don't go changing anything right now...The proper procedure would be to head to WP:AN/I to involve some admins; if you can show that your additions are in good-faith and are not spamming, then you might have a strong case against this other user for wikistalking and disruption. If you are spamming (read WP:SPAM to find out what this contitutes), then your edits may not be taken too kindly. -- Scientizzle 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

David Justin is a spammer, linking articles to his own site on the slightest pretext. One of his recent tactics appears to be copying text from the Wikipedia into his own page and then claiming his page as the source. See my comments in:

• Talk:Ernest Cherrington
• Talk:Daisey Douglas Barr
• Talk:Marie C. Brehm
• Talk:Temperance Educational Quarterly
• Talk:Alcohol and cancer Wham Bam No Thank You Spam 13:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

It's okay. I didn't even realise I had done the thing wrong till you pointed it out. I would just caution a little more tact - even old regular 'pedians like yourself deserve a bit of respect and understanding. The best of us make mistakes. Deb 18:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought I was okay tact-wise, at the time, but as I re-read my statement, it could certainly seem a little condescending. Thanks for the message. -- Scientizzle 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oy!

If you haven't done so already, check the e-mail associated with this account. -- Merope 20:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Man...I need to check that account more often...and fix the spam filter! Thanks for the message. I'll get back to you soon. -- Scientizzle 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English?

hi there (you're the first admin i've been able to find:p) this has been bugging me for a while now (it's not a moan). Since wiki is based in America, should I use use American English or English English? I've found that some spellings in English, eg colour, have been replaced with the American version (color). Jackacon 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC) forgot to sign sorry

Hello! I'm sorry I was away when you messaged. I see, however, that Merope (talk • contribs) has answered more than sufficiently. I'm generally around, so feel free to ask me about anything in the future... -- Scientizzle 05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal!

Oh, I didn't catch that at all! You vandalized my talk page. Thank you. KP Botany 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky, sneaky. I figured my vandalism of choice was apropos for the circumstances through which our paths crossed. Now feel free to feel important. :) -- Scientizzle 05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your comments on my my recent RfA in which I withdrew because the oppose votes were almost equalling the supporters. I then decided to leave my account (Tellyaddict) and start fresh under a new username, however I quickly decided to reconsider after another user persuaded me not to leave the account - I am now glad I did reconsider because leaving that account and creating a new one was too hasty so I've decided to improve rather than starting again! I hope we can remain civil and that there were no negative feelings caused. Again, thanks for your support even though you opposed and I withdrew it, your vote is much appreciated! Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tellyaddict, I'm glad you're sticking around as-is, rather than "starting over", because (as I said) I feel if you keep working at your current production & learning curve, I'll gladly support your future adminship. I wouldn't be surprised if, in two or three months, you had readily dealt with many of the criticisms that prevented the RfA from passing. For what it's worth, I had no qualms with you stating a desire for adminship early, I was merely held back by edits only a month old that didn't have the grasp of policy I feel an admin should have. Keep up the good work (your vandal-fighting is top-notch), participate in some policy & guideline discussions, and cool your heels on Category:Cleanup when you get too wrapped up in dafcon levels. :) Happy editing, Scientizzle 05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments left on my user page about my above RfAm it will be a little while until my next one andthis time I'm going to be patient and directly address the concerns raised. Again thank you and happy editing to you too! Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 12:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming & Greenhouse Effect

Thx 4 duh help. U just saved me from a 0 for mah science project:D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.2.112.34 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome. Good luck on the project. -- Scientizzle 22:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for reverting my talk page. →DancingPenguin 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. -- Scientizzle 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ziggurat Magazine and Charles J. Haynes

Understandable. Mephistophilis 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Great work

Awwwww, thanks! Categories are the most horribly boring thing -- but I'm obsessed with them right now, and it's nice that somebody noticed. Thanks again!! Magichands 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do you know it isn't neccessary nonsense

I purposely added content so people like you would waste your time as I am wasting mine at work right now. Don't you think your depleting the point of true research and essentially dumbing people down who search through what your write? Who are you? Are you a published author who has done the neccessary research, or have you merely plagarized various references and accepted it as your own knowledge?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osufan900 (talk • contribs).

So you're actively admitting that you added content with the intent to "waste [others'] time"? Thanks. -- Scientizzle 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about sources

Hi Mr. Scientizzle,

As regards the article "Tsyam", you wrote to me about the need to find sources. Since this is my first article, although I have checked out the relevant policies on verifiability and reliable sources, I am not sure yet of the practical aspect of the issue, that is, the technique of inserting the sources I have found, in the "edit this page" text. Any suggestions you might have would be most welcome. Best regards Shkëmbi [Shkëmbi 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)] Eeemte (talk • contribs)

Hi again,

Wikipedia:Attribution has all you need to know about what is required of articles, namely that all information within an article can be attributed to a proper, reliable source (avoiding a writer's own original research). This is important to preserve the integrity of the information presented and the encyclopedia as a whole. Reliable sources may include published books, television shows or newspaper articles, for example; they rarely include personal websites, search engine results, or word-of-mouth, for example.

Once you find a proper source, it's important to give the source information within the article. Wikipedia:Citing sources has useful information on the where/when/why/how of sourcing within Wikipedia articles. I prefer this technique because I think it looks nicer and is less intrusive to the text.

A few practical notes:

• Have the major sources within the article before submitting it the first time, this will help prevent over-zealous editors from tagging an incomplete article with speedy deletion tags and may help other editors to contribute to the article earlier.
• Use the "Show preview" button before submitting any edit to be sure things look like they should.

Best of luck, and don't hesitate to ask me future questions. -- Scientizzle 02:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you very much for the answer!!

Hi, Thanks a lot for the answering my Q!! --Nirajrm ^{talk ||| sign plz!} 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. My pleasure...I hope it was right (enough) and it helps you in your reading. -- Scientizzle 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For answering my question at reference desk! Nirajrm talk	sign plz! 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insightful commentary

FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF DIRTY ASS SHIT. I WORK HARD TO PUT SHIT ON HERE AND YOU DELETE IT BECAUSE YOU THINK YOUR SOME FUCKING HOT SHOT. WELL FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING COMPUTER ASS NERD. GET A FUCKING LIFE! ROT IN HELL—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maw6969 (talk • contribs).

[edit] User:Jordan Star Records

This user has been driving me nuts recently, editing and creating the same pages with nonsense and nn inclusions under a myriad of different usernames. I'm going to put a formal report together later when I have time. Deiz talk 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you blocked the user...Keep me updated. Here's the related stuff I found as I was diggin into this user...

• I noticed the label's "website" is a MySpace page for some kid.[2]
• Joshy's Crazy Life has been deleted several times, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshy's Crazy Life
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolla Billz has some interesting info on probable sock puppet masters...

After finding all that, I figured I'd run into a large sock operation. Let me know if there's any way I can help. -- Scientizzle 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Walter

I've requested administrator intervention at AN/I as well as help at BLP/N. -- Scientizzle 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Below are statements from involved parties. -- Scientizzle 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help me deal with this vandal

False claims keep being published. Brent Turvey (user: Bturvey) has repeatedly published untrue statements on Richard Walter's wikipedia page-- [3].

Brent Turvey has been known for this type of sabotage against Richard and other criminal profilers. He has created a false pdf file that appears as a court document that he posts on his own websites to try to "trash" forensic professionals. Richard Walter was cleared of pergury allegations [4] and remains in good standing with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the foremost forensic organization. Mr. Turvey has been refused admission to this group.

I am asking for your help in dealing with this problem.

Thank you,

Kate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.240.17.187 (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] False Content - Richard Walter site

Scientizzle;

Thanks for suggesting that we talk about it. I've trying to do just that. However...

Not only has editor 24.240.17.187 repeatedly removed the accurate edits made to the Richard Walter article that I have made, but this individual is also removing my attempts to discuss it in the talk section. Clearly, his person is attempting to further the perpetration of fraudlent information in hopes of staving off the inevitable discovery of Walters as a fraud by the public.

See: "The Forensic Fraud Archive", which my company maintains to document such cases. Walter is listed alphabetically at the end, with links to supporting court records.

The acrobat file was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006. You'll need to select more than 10 documents per page to see it.

Please feel free to contact me directly.

Brent E. Turvey, MS Bturvey (talk • contribs) <email redacted>

[edit] LIBELOUS Content - Richard Walter site

Bturvey is adding LIBELOUS information to the biography page of Richard Walter

Mr. Turvey is upset because Mr. Walter had blocked his admission to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. To try to get even, Mr. Turvey has created libelous websites and is attempting to vandalize his wikipedia page.

I strongly suggest that the page be LOCKED at the point before Bturvey's vandalism.

To accuse someone of "perjury" and "fraud" is libel.

Please contact me so that we can settle this dispute.

Thank you very much,

User: Buzzle45 Buzzle45 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Thank you for your help on - Richard Walter

Unfortunately, I have had to forward this dispute to arbitration. I have never known anyone so intent on disseminating harmful content as Brent Turvey. Buzzle45 (talk • contribs)

18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Dr. Doug Powell into Food Safety Network

I am sending you this message because you edited Food Safety Network. I added a merge template to Dr. Doug Powell proposing that it be merged into Food Safety Network. There has been some debate about whether Dr. Powell is sufficiently notable to have a separate article. It appears that the FSN is much more likely to be considered notable than its director. Some of the info about Dr. Powell is already in the FSN article; perhaps a bit more could be added, then delete the article on Dr. Powell. If you wish to comment, please go to Talk:Food Safety Network. Please do not delete the merge templates until there is adequate time to discuss, generally about four weeks unless there appears to be significant agreement earlier. For details about the merging process, see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Thanks. Ward3001 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squirrel Tag

My apologies for taking off the speedy deletion tag, I put my reasoning on the Squirrel Tag talk page. I think this should stay, please let it stay, this is a very informational article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redneck16 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Looks like it's too late...The article was clearly nonsense and not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (and at least a deleting admin agreed). Please contribute more constructively. -- Scientizzle 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No it was not nonsense it is a real life game that needs to be known about! Wikipedia lately has been pissing me off.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redneck16 (talk • contribs).

If you think an article was improperly deleted, file a claim at deletion review. -- Scientizzle 00:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My talk

Thanks for reverting vandalism. I checked the history, today, and I noticed there was vandalism I didn't notice. Thanks a lot!! I'm now at two vandalisms. I feel honored!! The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. You're welcome... -- Scientizzle 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ricky D. Purl

I was bold and tossed it on Speedy. I think it's either a hoax or A7... - Denny 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. It was rejected however, so the prod stands alone now. -- Scientizzle 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism to my Talk page! --THE BIG BABY :) ElKevbo 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem...I gave the user a final warning. Looks to be a vandal-only account. -- Scientizzle 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tsyam

Dear Scientizzle, Tonight, I entered a few sources in my article "Tsyam" on the "edit this page". After I clicked on Save, another page showed, which referred to spam regarding a hyperlink. This surprised me. Besides, before typing in the sources, I could not find the article on the Wikipedia website. It had already been removed. Why? If I have done something wrong unknowingly, I would thank you if you guide me to do the right thing. Sincerely Shkëmbi 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you could not find the article...Tsyam is still there, just as you left it on March 7. Sometimes the search functions can work funky or the database can lock up. Were you, perhaps at a slightly different spelling?

Regarding the "spam link" page, that's usually related to the metawiki spam blacklist. If you find your source is from one of those many domains, that would explain why it would not let you publish the link. If you feel this is in error, you'd need to find an administrator to edit the spamlist...I'm not an admin, so I couldn't help you there, but Wikipedia:Administrators has info that can help you contact an admin for assistance. I hope this all helps... -- Scientizzle 03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

User:Bobbybilly90 appears to be a vandal, he has left a comment on my talk page which was a personal attack, I reverted that. At first he just added some experiments to Five Knuckle Shuffle but then he did the talk page comment. Just giving you the heads up about this user.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redneck17 (talk • contribs).

Mmm...hmmm. Have you read WP:SOCK yet? Abusive sockpuppetry is frowned upon and readily leads to blocks. -- Scientizzle 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from Suncloud

Thank you for your 'welcome' to wikipedia. I'm finding my way around ok for now, but still much to learn! I'm keeping myself busy checking Recent Changes for obvious vandalism, or reading up on topics that interest me. Work calls again next week so less from me ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suncloud (talk • contribs).

[edit] Exsqueeze me?

Can you help shed light on this ColdDiablo blocking, then reversion by you on my talk page? Whyfor/wherefore/whence did it come, and how did you catch it so quickly? --MalcolmGin 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, lemme explain as much as I know. ColdDiablo (talk • contribs) was a vandal-only account that I ran into when s/he made this edit. I warned (test4), and the user continued on commiting several more acts of vandalism before being blocked. The user did the same thing--adding a {{blocked}} template--to several other editors. I haven't been able to figure out why you were a target, though. In any case, you're obviously not blocked, and this vandal is definitely blocked. Happy editing! -- Scientizzle 06:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I was cogitating why I might be a target too, and thought it might have been because I'd just made an edit to another page (because on LiveJournal, sometimes folks get targetted by scammers and are chosen because it's easy to tell who just made an edit (and is therefore active)). Either that or it's because I've been involved in a pitched discussion on Talk:Klinefelter's syndrome (now archived to Talk:Klinefelter's syndrome/archive_1), but I rate that as less likely. I honestly don't know why, not being familiar with ColdDiablo (talk • contribs) at all. Anyhow, thanks for chasing it down. I was just curious. Thanks also for my welcome! :) --MalcolmGin 12:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My comments on Talk:The Wikipedians apparently warrant a warning.

I am curious as to how my comments on the talk page are being construed as "personal attacks". The articles validity was in question and I explained calmly while it was important. Perhaps the hasty deletion of the article by the editor was a personal attack aimed at me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelochness (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Prior to the deletion of The Wikipedians, your last comment on Talk:The Wikipedians stated that The Behnam (talk • contribs) and others were "rogue editing". I think that's certainly uncivil. -- Scientizzle 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] db removal

I placed the db in the first place, but then another editor put the notability conflict template up, so I thought he had more hope/information on the article. Altosax456 04:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I double checked and I didn't place it, you did. Now I'm confused. Lol Altosax456 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured it out. You (correctly) db tagged Whitelightsyndrome, which was then copied to White Light Syndrome (Band). I tagged that one for notability & then the db a minute later. I'm going to reapply db-band. I did the notability a little earlier in an effort to avoid biting. Thanks for the quick reply! -- Scientizzle 04:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks, now I see Altosax456 04:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Healing Cancer: The Top 12 Non-Toxic Cancer Treatments To Help You Beat Cancer (2005)

Scientizzle - I would like to get my page back for the above entry. I just placed this message for the editor who marked it for speedy deletion. If you could tell me how to go about getting it back.

Andy:

I have read through the Criteria for speedy deletion, and to be honest with you, I am suprised at your action.

I say this because the first few lines of the article state:

'Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author.'

Presumably - 'it would also be considerate to notify the original author' is written there, so that the author has a chance to repond to any comments. However, I note that the article has already been deleted, in less than 24 hours, before I was even able to provide a response to you. This does feel like a bit of a knee jerk reaction to me, and I am not feeling that you have taken the time to become aquainted with the entry, or with any responses I might make.

Though another editor did not come to quite the same drastic conclusion, but rather (highlighted concerns - actually - which I understood), and also provided me with a bit of assistance to improve the page, you have made a claim under:

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion.

Andy, you may feel that the entry was blatent advertising, but it was not meant or intended as that. Actually, I felt the entry was a clear and cool description of the books contents. The fact that the contents of the book are so compelling and interesting to many people, and in my view, that there is nothing else like it in publication - does not make the entry advertising.
I believe strongly in the Wikipedia concept - and use it extensivly myself - and I wish to enhance its knowledge base - not in any way diminish it. Actually, I have never considered Wikipedia to be a place to advertise - rather I consider it an expression of the worlds knowledge base - and as such I consider that one of the most useful and original books on a subject that is important to millions of poeple deserves an entry here.

If the page needs editing - then fine - I have no problem with that - though I have to tell you - that I was at a bit of a loss - as to what to say on the page - apart from providing a cool and dispassionate summary of the books contents.

A part of me is feeling that you have deleted it under the 'blatent category' method - because you saw the concerns about notability were met - in my understanding, by the two references to reviews of the book in appropriate media journals.

I would therefore like to ask you Andy, to reinstate my page - or explain to me how I can have it reinstated on an immediate basis - and if need be - put it through a proper process of improvement and/or anything else that needs to happen.

I mean - really what do I care if Wikipedia doesnt include this article. But then Wikipedia wont have an article on one of the only books of its kind.

Wiki5000 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of Innocence: War & Peace In The 21st Century (2007 film)

Scientizzle: I dont think I am going to be able to meet the Notability guidelines for this article. I am thinking that I will just have to wait until later for it to be reentered.

Wiki5000 23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for you support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 14:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I justed started a new article, Leptasterias pusilla, but I am concerned...

I am still new to wikipedia, and today I started a new article, Leptasterias pusilla, not realizing there is a Wikispecies wikimedia site. Do I need to move this article? If so, how?

Thank you for your help! Kilbad 00:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Brendan | kilbad.com

I wouldn't worry about it. There's an abundance of precendent that species articles are notable & welcome on Wikipedia. Just keep up the good work and source things as well as you can. Check out Template:Taxobox, too, as it's a standard inclusion in species articles. Best of luck, — Scientizzle 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)