User talk:Scientizzle/Archive 3

---

Directory:
Archives
March 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – February 2007
Contents 1 Super irony 2 What is wrong with saying that Rolling Stone is full of -----? 3 Hello Scientizzle 4 Evolution 5 Thanks 6 Mentoring of User:Ironhide1975 7 No consensus for Pamuk 8 A comment that doesn't dignify a serious response 9 Forest of bliss 10 Harsh words... 11 Tallyho17's drmspeedy 12 Travel Pelopor 13 Madness Combat 14 Axis Deletion 15 Madness Combat, re-opened? 16 Recent Changes - Bold Text 17 User talk template messages 18 Madness Combat saved 19 User:DaJAG 20 User talk: F*** 21 Re: edit summary 22 PS3 23 Thanks... 24 Wow, nicely done 25 USC titles nonsense 26 Vandalize? 27 My application letter - request advice 28 Sulligent 29 Option Strategy Analyzer and Screener 30 Recent AIV report 31 Article & talk page blanking by Bill Clark (talk • contribs) 32 Reference Desk 33 removed vandalism 34 Tomfoolery and whatnot 34.1 Wut the hell? 35 Thank you! 36 one question 37 Assistance 38 Witty banter 39 Thanks 40 Personal attacks

[edit] Super irony

linked: super irony

I see that you don't like my contribution. I have modified it, and put up a hangon on the talk page. If you do not approve, please say so there. -- Chris 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know better...Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. -- Scientizzle 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. -- Chris 23:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is wrong with saying that Rolling Stone is full of -----?

I mean, I agree with NPOV in principle, but when a magazine says that the greatest musician ever is actually only #27 best, I have to take exception. Sorry to disagree. -- Chris 00:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's simple. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If you can find a reliable source for your statement, then it's eligible to be included in the article (its inclusion would also depend on how much it adds to the development of a comprehensive article in terms of structure, flow and sufficiently notable information). Please discontinue adding your personal opinions to articles. -- Scientizzle 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a reliable source though! Chris

Hardly. And your creation of a Reliable source article is yet another obtuse violation of WP:POINT. -- Scientizzle 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I give up. I apologize. Shutting up now. Chris 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The indefinite block you just received was richly deserved... -- Scientizzle 07:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'd say I'm sorry but that might be deemed pointless. Cheers ChrisWright1979 = user:cjwright79. Regardless, this is my last troll. Sorry for being such a dick.

The apology rings hollow as you've repeatedly "apologized" for countless other disruptions and never changed your behavior. It's unfortunate you chose to be a troll because you have provided at least a few useful edits. Please find some other way to spend your time rather than vandalizing this site... -- Scientizzle 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Scientizzle

You have an interesting alias may I say -- you must like science a lot huh? :)

Thank you for your warm welcome, and the links provided along with it. It all sounds good!

Bye for now! :) Vangran

Just try to behave, okay CJ? -- Scientizzle 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

You make a good point - I hadn't realized that even traits could spread that were actively nonadaptive, under the right conditions. That changes things a bit. And it is indeed worth keeping in mind that small changes at the genetic level can have bizarre, possibly substantial effects on the resultant organism. However, that just makes my question even more important. How do we know, for a fact, that it's even possible for the things we see around us to have evolved the way they're supposed to have? Even if the results of a mutation can be large and unpredictable, there are still a set number of changes a particular organism can make that wouldn't outright kill it, and only a set number of those that wouldn't kill it long-term. How do we know for a fact that of those many, various changes available, there exist any that would (collectively) do what we claim they must? And assuming we have proven they exist (which would be hard, given that few genomes have even been sequenced and they aren't well understood), how do we prove, the burden of proof being on the supporters of the theory, that there's even an outside chance one of these series of changes would happen fast enough to fit within the requisite timespan? It's not that I think the theory's wrong, I'm perfectly willing to trust the consensus opinion of scientists worldwide, it's just that I can't find anything that explains how we've proven (again, proven, through logic or overwhelming evidence or both) that it could work. Black Carrot 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's taken me a while to find time to respond, but here I go...

You're asking a tough question, but I'm not sure if it's the right question. "How do we know, for a fact, that it's even possible for the things we see around us to have evolved the way they're supposed to have?" This seems to be the thrust of your query and it merits a two-part response:

• How do we know the process of evolution can produce modern organisms in the Earth's life-supporting timeframe? Well, it may seem tautological, but the answer should be self-evident: if there wasn't enough time, it wouldn't have happened; since it presumably did happen, there must have been enough time. (We are talking about billions of years here...) You seem to be asking for a proof-of-concept model to verify that a 2 billion year timescale is sufficient to develop a complex lifeform--I think it's safe to say that any model created within our lifetimes will be woefully inadequate. Truthfully, I don't think this is a question worth asking--if we can eventually demonstrate how & when every major evolutionary step took place, it would be de facto proof that Earth's evolutionary timescale was sufficient for evolution.
  • Currently we have a generalized model (evolution by natural selection) that is logically consistent and had robustly provided testable predictions for the various steps in evolution. While the data set is still thin in many places, there's been recent exponential increases in phylogenic data that consistently support the general ToE framework. On the whole, the preponderance of evidence supports evolutionary theory and has provided a rough, but generally sensible (considering what we do know of DNA mutation rates--see molecular clock--and selection models) timeline for organism evolution.
• Secondly, when you ask for "proof" and "know"ing something for a "fact," please consider the scientific versus colloquial meanings of these words. Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" Statistical significance is an important notion in the way scientists digest data and trust the outcome. One must demonstrate convincingly that an effect or outcome is a defined result of the experimental condition (causative, not correlative) beyond, essentially, a reasonable doubt. That is, as Occam's razor razor comes into play, the explanation that best fits the data is to be preferred until some evidence comes along to show that the current model is inadequate, antiquated, or flat-out wrong.
  • In the case of models of speciation, there are very few alternative models that have any supporting evidence, and there exists essentially no established evidence that doesn't fit with the general theory. This doesn't mean that the current model of the Theory of Evolution is absolutely correct (certainly some aspects of it are undoubtedly wrong), it just means that it's the current best-fit explanation, and it's always (technically) vulnerable to be superseded by another scientific theory that better encompasses all available data.

Okay, taking these points together, let's look at your question again.

While there's no undisputable proof that ~2 billion years is "enough" time for the mechanisms of evolution to have created the complex organisms of the world today, there's certainly a lot of evidence to support the idea and no evidence (despite what William Dembski claims) that disproves that such is the case.

And since the current theory fits the evidence, the onus is on those that would support an alternate theory to provide alternative evidence and/or a better explanation.

Hopefully this rambling treatise effectively addressed your question. If not, maybe I could better respond to a rewording of your query... -- Scientizzle 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It helps. I still don't get it, though. I follow what you say (except the first bit, which is circular), and you're right, but it doesn't really answer the question, since you never say what evidence you're referring to. When you say "had robustly provided testable predictions for the various steps in evolution", for instance, what predictions does it provide that can be tested?

What I'm trying to find out is why scientists are convinced that evolution is almost certainly right. Black Carrot 03:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting to a clear question. what predictions does [evolution] provide that can be tested? These range from the obvious & mundane to incredibly complex, but here are a few simple examples:

• Birds kind of look like reptiles...one might hypothesize that modern birds and modern reptiles diverged from a common ancestor. If true:

1. There should be some fossil evidence of early birds that are considerably more like reptiles, growing more morphologically similar as one progresses further into the past--the classic "missing link."
2. If they shared a relatively recent common ancestor, birds and reptiles would likely have highly homologous physical traits, from bone structures to embryonic development patterns to protein signaling cascades at the cellular level.
3. Similarly, birds and reptiles should show significant similarities in DNA sequence (due to common descent), and divergence in ways that underlie the physical differences between the two. Also, the rate of mutational occurance must be within reason for the timespan in question (the molecular clock principle).

These are the types of testable hypotheses evolution provides. All known evidence for this example and any others is generally in support of this sort of pattern, if not perfectly in line. I the example above, the proposed model of avian ancestry would be simply disproved if a bird fossil was found and (reliably) dated to an era that preceded the age of reptiles, if a bird "missing link" fossil was found that looked (for example) fish-like rather than reptile-like, and/or if birds and reptiles lacked sufficient homolgy.

In the bird-reptile common descent example, there's ample (& easy to find) evidence in each of the three categories. Likewise with humans-great apes. It's tougher to make a humans-amoeba case because the timescale involved is so vast, but compelling cases exist for each evolutionary stepping stone from single-celled organisms to modern complex eukaryotes.

The flexibility & consistent success of the ToE in explaining speciation, and the complete lack of well-substantiated alternate scientific theories (invoking the supernatural is nonscientific because it necessitates the abandonment of naturalism) gives evolution top billing as an established scientific theory. Scientists as a whole aren't necesarily "convinced that evolution is almost certainly right," but confident that this self-consistent framework describing the natural phenomenon of speciation has been repeatedly confirmed for many years and will continue to accurately describe future data requiring only tweaks of the overall formula.

In my own opinion, I feel that many go overboard in defending the "incontroveritble truth" of evolution largely because the subtleties of relative institutional confidence in theories is lost on the lay person. I'm personally confident in the general framework of the ToE (p<0.00001 :) ), while cautiously optimistic that if the theory breaks down it will be for a similar, compatible, but even more robust framework. (Everyone thought Newton's law of universal gravitation was perfect until it couldn't explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury...general relativity was the necessary theoretical upgrade--it's not so much that Newton's law was wrong, rather it was just not quite right.) -- Scientizzle 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for letting me know. I fully protected one user talk page, but I'm not sure what to do about the rest. Nishkid64 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your work. -- Scientizzle 00:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentoring of User:Ironhide1975

Hey - I just happened to run across the excellent job you've been doing of mentoring Ironhide1975 on their talk page. Thank you for putting that kind of time and effort into helping newbies - I aspire to be that good someday. Perel 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Happy editing, Scientizzle 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus for Pamuk

There is NO CONCENSUS FOR adding PAUMK. No one was consulted ! People in Turkey hate him with a passion and his so called prize was given for selling out his country for fame. He is not even the greatest writer;that is either Nazim Hikmet or Duygu Asena. READ ABOUT TURKEY BEFORE EDITING ABOUT IT. Some turcophobes like jamie have been trying to ruin turkish pages for a long time now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terkko (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm far from a "turcophobe." I have Turkish friends, and I'd very much like to visit Turkey some day. I am, however, against POV agendas being pushed on any articles, Turkey-related or otherwise. Many conservative Americans were upset when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize, but that doesn't mean we should pretend it didn't happen. No one is saying that Paumk represents all things Turkey, but it is notable and significant that he won a Nobel Prize. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It was me who put that in when I was completely rewriting half the article yesterday. It took me nearly ten hours to correctly structure, reference and copy-edit the whole damn thing. Before I rewrote it, the culture section was one sentence and had no sources or pictures. I put in links to TR architecture, TR literature, Turkish hip-hop, football, Istanbul Formula 1 along with Orhan Pamuk. I am a Turk and definitely not the kind that would be called a "traitor", in fact I have been called a pan-Turkist so many times, it would blow your mind. However, a Turkish writer being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature this year is more than relevant. I notice that Orhan Pamuk has become a scapegoat recently, and it is a shame that it is clouding his literary achievements of the last 25 years. I read some of his books and none of them were political. There are many Turkey articles that need help, please help out with them. Baristarim 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments everyone...sorry I signed offline before I had a chance to respond. Terkko (talk • contribs), you're clearly trying to push your point-of-view agenda here, which is clearly against policy. You deleted sourced material from Turkey based on claims of "thinly veiled racism" (even though the claim was verifiable & from a reliable source), and removed any mention of Orhan Pamuk, the Nobel prize winner, based on spurious claims of "everyone in turkey hates this son of a bitch traitor. You (sic.) inclusion reeks of a political agenda and turcophobia", and similar various claims against Pamuk and the editors that oppose your action. Alleging racism is a great way to alientate good editors like Jaime & Baristarim. Perhaps in the future you will explain your positions in a far more eloquent and far less aggressive manner on the relevant talk pages. -- Scientizzle 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A comment that doesn't dignify a serious response

Putting that George W. Bush is the worst thing to happen to America isn't vandalism since it's true.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs). [1]

[edit] Forest of bliss

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll certainly try to be more complete in adding stub templates in the future... Thanks. -- Scientizzle 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harsh words...

In response to my comment at User talk:Captain Stabby: I have removed your non-serious additions to Brendan Loy. Since the sum total of your edits to Wikipedia are 2 examples of blatant vandalism[2][3], a comment that could be construed as a personal attack[4], and your latest addition, which contained some decent edits along with contemptuous statements like "Mickey Kaus has refused to comment on whether his comment was facetious" and "uninformed journalists and blog visitors," I'll leave you with this: Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Scientizzle 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who the hell do you think you are removing my valid comments to the Brendan Loy article? They were thoughtful edits, and provided necessary context. Please cease your vandalism of my work.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Stabby (talk • contribs).

Your most recent edit to Brendan Loy was perfectly fine, but your previous edits were decidedly not. I reverted those comments that were simply not fit for an encyclopedia. Who do you think you are, adding statements like "Loy is wanted in no less than 4 jurisdictions for acts which common decency prevents mentioning in this forum. Suffice to say, it involves a lot of pizza, gallons of diet coke, and a monstrous hideous creature who is prone to wearing sweatsuits"[5]? It's difficult to take your contributions in good faith when your track record is simply low-grade to blatant vandalism of a single article and trite personal attacks. That you have some apparent beef with Brendan Loy is of no interest to me, but I will continue to revert any edits that I feel are vandalism on this and every other Wikipedia article. -- Scientizzle 19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I loathe you. But I want to know for sure. I'll get back to you soon, with an answer you might not like. Captain Stabby 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate. I'm generally rather likable. Please do not vandalize my talk page. -- Scientizzle 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tallyho17's drmspeedy

You beat me to it by a few seconds due to a typeo. :P Pumeleon^T 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry to steal your thunder... -- Scientizzle 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all right. I'm just amused when so many people get the same thing done on RC patrol. ;3 Pumeleon^T 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travel Pelopor

Hi Scientizzle,
Thanks for you're welcome and for looking at my first article.
Cheers Pelopor 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, happy to do so. Best of luck with future articles, Scientizzle 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madness Combat

I understand that no one could provide evidence of relevence on the talk page when it was deleted, but if you would please follow this link, (and pay no attention to animation not within the series) then I think that you would find evidence of immense popularity, and hopefully lift the salted earth status.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/search.php?terms=madness+combat&kind=j&x=19&y=4 this link contains evidence that millions of people have viewed it on newgrounds alone (antipathy being the only one below a million, and apotheosis + avenger having over 2 million views)

the series is also on stickpage http://www.stickpage.com/madnessseries.shtml and the series has its own fan site (not made by the creator) http://madnesscombat.com/ I also believe that it is on a few other sites that I don't know.

contact me at < email redacted >—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schizel (talk • contribs).

I don't doubt that the animation has acheived considerable popularity, but until it has received some sort of notable media (or something similar) coverage it won't meet WP:WEB. -- Scientizzle 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I know how this will sound, and I'm sorry 'bout that. Doesn't the fact that it holds such CONSIDERABLE popularity kind of make it considerable. I would think the standards would be lower for a flash animation to be notable. Is wikipedia realy that strict about requiring outside media? Again sorry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schizel (talk • contribs).

I understand your frustration, and you're making a couple of good points...but there's clearly a precedent that, say, a popular YouTube video only gets a Wikipedia article if it has achieved some mainstream attention, likewise with blogs and other websites. If you can make a case as to why flash animations should have a lower standard, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). I personally don't think the threshold should be higher or lower for any of the types I've mentioned...and just citing the apparent number of views of a flash animation for notability wouldn't really be reliable. You'd probably be better served by spending your efforts contacting recognizable, notable media establishments about Madness Combat (and why they should review it or write about it) and develop WP:WEB-meeting credibility. Just my $.02. -- Scientizzle 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axis Deletion

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt etc. but it really was quite intentional. I've been surfing and contributing to wiki for a year or three under various IPs and I can tell you full well that the only two ways to resolve something on the info page is to either do it while nobody is looking (too bad you were on hand that instant) or to galvanize a huge lobby that votes the same way and has several prominent editors unafraid of edit wars behind it.

Soviet Union as an "axis" member is sheer nonsense but to get that deleted via wikipedia's established ways would take several months or more and attract the anti-Soviet crowd who would instarevert anything you change.

As I said, too bad I got caught. Cheers. 205.250.208.203 00:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your honesty is refreshing! While I understand that having a section on the Soviet Union in the Axis powers of World War II article can lead to some confusion, I think the writing in that section makes it clear that Germany and the Soviet Union were not allied, but merely partners in some shady military/political dealings. The section could certainly use better external sourcing and perhaps it could be made clear earlier that the Soviet Union's primary role over the course of World War II was as a member of the Allies...

Please do bring up your concerns on the article talk page, though...it's not a perfect system, but it beats unexplained section blanking. -- Scientizzle 01:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madness Combat, re-opened?

Hi,

I've been chatting with User_talk:Mr._Lefty about the status of the Madness Combat articles as well as a previous poster. I noticed today that Madness_Combat is now permitting edits --> Was this article re-opened? Did you do that? I put up a test edit, because it appeared to be unlocked. I don't want to violate the terms of service. Can you confirm that this page is intentionally now "unsalted earth?"

Note that the other spelling is still prohibited: Madness_combat - this makes it confusing as to whether this article is ok or banned.

Thanks and happy holidays! stevemidgley (Stevemidgley (talk • contribs))

Stevemidgley 01:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Madness Combat was unprotected, in accordance with Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages ("Nearly all older protected deleted pages should be permanently deleted after a few months."), but Madness combat was not. The unprotecting admin was User:Centrx, so you should just bring it to that user's attention if and when you get around to creating a solid Madness Combat article.

I had no part in the the "re-opening" of the page, as I'm not a sysop, but it does appear legitimately "unsalted". As a practical warning, recreations of MC that aren't of a sufficient initial quality will be readily speedy deleted, and poor quality entries may encourage another deletion-protection. Best of luck! And Happy Holidays! -- Scientizzle 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this. I've written to Centrx to find out the scoop on the article. I'm inquiring with the owners of this site to see if we can use it as the basis for an article on WP. It looks like a reasonably thorough coverage, and if the copyright is clear, it seems like a good way to make sure the early revisions are solid? Thanks for your input and help! Stevemidgley 04:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes - Bold Text

I believe the bold text in recent changes indicates pages on your watchlist. Dan D. Ric 01:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply...my question was actually in regards to the bold text that would appear (prior to the color-coding of + & - changes) on significantly large deletions of data. The answer seems to have been provided, however: the bold was an indication of 500< characters deleted. -- Scientizzle 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk template messages

Hey there. I see that an IP deleted your comment on an AFD and that you warned them on User talk:81.159.202.101. I'm not sure how many editors are aware of Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, but it points to many of the warnings that apply for specific situations, in this case {{TestTalk}}. Just passing the resource along. :) Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the link. I'll be sure to use more specific templates in the future... -- Scientizzle 05:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madness Combat saved

The Madness Combat article has been reopened? Did it recieve media attention recently or something, and this happened to coincide with my efforts, or did I actually do something, or what else might have happened? I mean, the former is quite a coincidence, but it seems unlikely that it would have been me and/or Stevemidgley (not to say no one else was involved), so what was it? Schizel 05:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I am triyng not to sound pretentous (I'm certain it wasn't me)

p.p.s. Is it possible to change my name, schizel sucks and I don't want to be accused of sock puppeting.

p.p.p.s. Despite arguing for deletion, you have been infinitley more helpfull than any of those supporting the article on the talk page. Thanks!

Thanks for the messages. See my responses to stevemidgley's comment above, it covers some of your post here.

If you would like to change your user name, check out Wikipedia:Changing username & follow all the instructions.

I'm glad I've been helpful--please feel free to ask me any questions in the future! Happy Holidays, Scientizzle 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that both spellings are now open. Does this mean that we finnaly "won", and that it got outside media? Schizel

You can see here that the protection-deletion template was deleted on Madness combat by User:Centrx. You should see this for more information...and heed Centrx's advice: recreation without sufficient notability, using reliable sources, will just result in another deletion and maybe even protection again. Best of luck. Be sure the first draft is pretty good, with strong citations. -- Scientizzle 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:DaJAG

Hi. Just curious, why did that user even get a warning, in the face of his stated intention of vandalism and the fact he vandalized several pages apparently already? MadMaxDog 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've no sysop tools, and the early edits were plausibly going to be useful...but it quickly became clear that user was a vandal, especially after the userpage note about unleashing a "holy war" on the wiki. Still, I probably could/should have jumped straight to a {{bv}} warning and submitted to aiv sooner... -- Scientizzle 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk: F***

Sorry, I swear I didn't know I created it, I thought it was already there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyroost (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay, perhaps that's true, but since you've been rather disruptive today, I stand by the warning. If you quit screwing around and be a useful contributor (without further disruption), I'll be willing to remove the warning myself in a few days... -- Scientizzle 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyroost (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Re: edit summary

It is a revert of the deliberate insertion of factual errors by this IP user, who has done the same edits to the same set of articles in the past. Either that, or has others join in. Caldorwards4 catches alot of these as well.

But I'll be more descriptive in what the rv is addressing, if desired. Tarc 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. On further inspection, I see the same information was [[6]] by 189.162.77.84 (talk • contribs), that {[user|24.4.219.31}}, which may be the IPs (among others) of Robert Clay (talk • contribs) who also made the same edits. I wasn't aware that this article was consistently a target and now agree that your edit summary was accurate, if brief.

A more descriptive edit summary, however, is never a bad thing--especially if the reverted "vandalism" isn't an obvious act like adding "i luv justn tibmerLake", large-scale blanking, etc.

For my own personal preference, each new user/IP that does the same thing should get a full set of warnings with an explanation that refers to talk page consensus regarding the info in question. This will ensure that those that randomly stumble upon this issue (like me) as well as future blocking admins can get a quick, clear explanation. Others can help you fight the vandal if it's clearer why a seemingly benign change is actually disruptive. Thanks, Scientizzle 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS3

Revert by Scientizzle

"They both currently feature the magical bluray technology." --Notagoodname 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean... -- Scientizzle 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You just reverted to someone who deleted

The basic configuration of the console has a 20 GB internal hard drive. The "premium" version of the PlayStation 3 comes with an internal 60 GB 2.5" Serial ATA hard drive, IEEE 802.11b/g Wi-Fi connectivity, multiple flash memory card readers (SD, CompactFlash, Memory Stick) and features a chrome-colored trim.^[1] Both consoles now feature a silver-colored text logo on the top face of the system. The hard drive is upgradeable, using the standard Serial ATA interface. No official Wi-Fi or flash memory card adapters have yet been released by Sony, although plans for such add-ons are in place.^[2] Nevertheless, as both models feature four USB 2.0 ports, wireless networking and flash memory card support can already be obtained through the use of widely available external USB adapters. No high-definition video cables (neither component^[3] nor HDMI^[4]) are included; instead, a composite video/stereo audio cable ships with the system.

1. and replaced it with

The basic configuration of the console has a 20 GB internal hard drive. The "premium" version of the PlayStation 3 comes with an internal 60 GB 2.5" They both currently feature the magical bluray technology.

pecifications | publisher=PlayStation.com | accessdate=2007-01-02}}</ref> Both consoles now feature a silver-colored text logo on the top face of the system. The hard drive is upgradeable, using the standard Serial ATA interface. No official Wi-Fi or flash memory card adapters have yet been released by Sony, although plans for such add-ons are in place.[14] Nevertheless, as both models feature four USB 2.0 ports, wireless networking and flash memory card support can already be obtained through the use of widely available external USB adapters. No high-definition video cables (neither component[15] nor HDMI[16]) are included; instead, a composite video/stereo audio cable ships with the system.

1. along with my minor edit

--Notagoodname 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In the course of reverting vandalism & spamming, I reverted too far back. I've now fixed it, I hope. -- Scientizzle 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for the pointers =D L-Dawg1 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to ask me for help any time. -- Scientizzle 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, nicely done

I'm highly impressed at your answer about antibiotics on the science ref desk. Keep up the awesome work. Friday (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Scientizzle 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed too. I can just see all the interesting looking blue links branching out of the articles that you linked to though - I'll have to get reading quickly... JMiall 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USC titles nonsense

It looks like, after who knows how many times people have reverted, it's time to start pushing a block on this anon. --Bobak 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's getting a little ridiculous...I thought my hidden comment was a completely reasonable message to clarify 7 vs. 11. Hopefully your message will end this pointless revert war. -- Scientizzle 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalize?

You asked me not to vandalize but this is a friendly reminder that that man's user page asked to be vandalized. He told me to because he said he liked it. Scifiintel 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My application letter - request advice

Regarding that section of my letter of application dedicated to my career plan, I've written:

"After completing this course, I intend to find a PhD position and begin my life-long contribution to academic research. I hope that a subsequent post-doctoral position, perhaps at the same research institute wherein I completed my PhD will serve as my entry into the area of research that explores zinc finger protein transcription factors, nucleases and/or the vectors used to apply them therapeutically. Of course I consider the Department of Therapeutic Gene Modulation of the Groningen University Institute for Drug Exploration an obvious choice for this application."

It's quite short, but except to give my reasons (mostly freedom in research), there's nothing much more I can say. I'm applying to the University of Groningen. I was wondering if you have any comments before I print, sign, and send it? Thanks --Seans Potato Business 09:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty good. You might add a personal statement about why this research in particular drives your interest (how did you originally become interested in zinc finger protein transcription factors? what is it about these factors that makes them more interesting to you than other topics?), or why the University of Groningen is where you'd love to do this research.

It's never a bad idea to show within your letter that you're familiar with the university's reseachers and research paths and expressing an interest in joining such work.

Good luck! -- Scientizzle 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - I've added another paragraph to my letter, in response to your advice. I you care to read it, I've uploaded it in pdf form to: http://username132.tasminslair.com/Letter.pdf Thanks again :) --Seans Potato Business 06:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sulligent

Hi Scientizzle, I just wondered if you were from Sulligent. Matthew Cox is a friend of mine from Sulligent. Check the local yearbooks or Lamar Leader newspaper for verification if you want. I just wanted to have some fun with the kid. Is Sulligent set to your watchlist or something? I just wondered who actually cared about Sulligent. Anyway, I figured vandalizing the page on Sulligent wouldn't hurt too much, since nobody actually views the page. I probably won't vandalize any pages in the future. -kirov998 kirov998 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the message. I have responded on your talk page. -- Scientizzle 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Option Strategy Analyzer and Screener

Ah! Finally found another user who is new page patrolling as well as me! I am hoping to see your opinion on a recently created page. I have no idea what it is about, and have no clue whether it is spamming, nonsense or actually a legitimate article! Please take a look at it and let me know what you think! Cheers SGGH 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers SGGH 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Boy, that one was bad...I db'ed it. It looked like the most roundabout wikispam I've ever seen! -- Scientizzle 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent AIV report

I may just be dense, but I get the feeling not too many admins are watching AIV at the moment, and I'm unfortunately not in a locale where I can spend anything more than a few seconds looking at somebody's contribs. Copied your original report over to AN/I, hoping it'll get the attention it deserves over there. Just letting you know. Luna Santin 20:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Scientizzle 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article & talk page blanking by Bill Clark (talk • contribs)

Actually, just go ahead and leave the discussions, whatever, they prove my point that I made extensive efforts to accommodate the wishes of User:Spamreporter1, and that his calling me a spammer (which he continues to do) is an unfair attack. I have contributed to many different articles, and tried my best to meet him partway, but he is completely irrational. He apparently created that account just so he could attack me, since it was the very first thing he did. I'll leave the discussions alone, but am going to follow through with removing every article edit I have ever made, and requesting the deletion of the articles I've started. Other people can add them back, but I do not want them contributed under my name. I do not think that Wikipedia is a very good community, if they're so intent on driving people away like this. --Bill Clark 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've been driven away. But your actions are decidedly childish and unproductive. -- Scientizzle 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuck you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Clark (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I rest my case. -- Scientizzle 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Scientizzle. For what it's worth, I think information on cable operators and other utilities is useful. (although I disagree with the "fuck you" above as well as page blanking). If you get the chance, can you look at the proposal, perhaps too late, that I left at User talk:Bill Clark#Lists of utilities? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've responded here. -- Scientizzle 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk

Thank you for your attempt to answer my question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Antagonism_vs_Inhibition_.7C_Enzymes_.26_Neurotransmiters.

--Parker007 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave it another shot at further clarity...hopefully it helps. -- Scientizzle 16:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed vandalism

user page restored. --Darkest Hour|DarkeBot 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Scientizzle 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomfoolery and whatnot

you my dear ignorant bastard, are a fool. you cant silence the america public. i have a right for freedom!!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.235.61 (talk • contribs).

Riiiight. Thanks. Buh-bye now. -- Scientizzle 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wut the hell?

What the hell is your peoples problems?! Here I am trying to expand people's knowledge and you keep shutting me down. Is it because I believe in Communism? You people are discriminating and I would like for someone to appologize to me.

• @%* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricecop07 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Har. -- Scientizzle 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

My apologies Kbthompson 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob. -- Scientizzle 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] one question

Scientizzle,

thanks for welcoming me to wikipedia, i appreciate it. just one question for now, why/how did you pick me to send a welcome message to?

ContributorX (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.

To answer your question: when bored, I often track changes on Special:Recentchanges. This way I can spot vandals & revert, do spot copy-editing, and read random articles that I might not have stumbled across. I happened to see one of your edits at Image:GranthamUniversityWriting.gif and checked it out. I saw that nobody had welcomed you, a new-ish editor, and figured I should.

If you have any other questions, feel free to come by any time. Happy editing, Scientizzle 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance

Why did you delete my request for help? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the header at the top of the page? Besides, you cross-posted it. No need to clutter a talk page that's for "discussion of the guideline" not claims of harassment. Your post at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) should suffice, but you might also consider WP:AN/I. -- Scientizzle 02:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ok. thank you. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witty banter

scientizzile sucks aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcou (talk • contribs).

scientiizzle is a ffiin freak whoiis an a whipe—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcou (talk • contribs).

[edit] Thanks

I really appreciate you helping me but I don't understand how to change my username because I went to the page and I didn't understand. Sorry about this but could you please explain it to someone stupid like me!? L.T.O.G 19:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Hello, I have just reverted personal attacks on your userpage from a persistant anon vandal. Just to inform you. Retiono Virginian 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. Thanks! -- Scientizzle 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)