User talk:Dubbin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dubbin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Amren (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Dubbin

Yes, welcome, and thanks for clearing up my mistake on the Shoe polish article. Proto t c 09:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK physician?

Hi Dubbin, you appear to be medical & based in the UK. May I informally invite you to the WikiProject Clinical medicine? We also have the medical collaboration of the week. JFW | T@lk 15:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 22:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...should have been clearer. I was talking about that "wikipedophilic" (sp?) dictionary definition. - Lucky 6.9 23:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You bring up an excellent point and you deserve an explanation. Generally, neologisms with little or no support on Google are "shot on sight." Those that are sent to "votes for deletion" are always voted off. Since Wikipedia isn't a dictionary (or slang dictionary, for that matter), the word doesn't really belong. "Leet," on the other hand, is in widespread use and has an encyclopedic history. Simply put, the odds aren't good of someone researching your term. Ah, but all is not lost. Your user page is currently empty and you're free to do almost anything with it. Why not incorporate the term on that page? It might even get more exposure, at least among the rest of the community. I hope this helps and that I haven't discouraged you from contributing. Thanks for your concern and I wish you hours of happy and fun editing. - Lucky 6.9 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Something else that is extremely easy for we "self-aggrandizing" administrators to do is block users for violation of the no personal attacks rule. I'm not interested in a flame war or a block war, so let's let it drop, OK? Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 17:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athetosis

Your comment on pseudoathetosis makes perfect sense, but it is a rather bold assertion - has a study been published that compares referrals for athetosis with final diagnosis of pseudoathetosis. I'm just a little bit concerned about original research. Please drop me a line anyway. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose anecdotal material could be included if any of those eminent consultants were willing to be quoted on this; ideally, though, such a statement should be sourced to published material.
I'm not sure if I agree that these articles will only be read my medics. It is true that athetosis/pseudoathetosis are niche articles compared to, say, cancer or diabetes mellitus, but you'll be surprised how many laypeople turn to Wikipedia to get more information on their medical problems (as evidenced from personal testimonies on talk pages). JFW | T@lk 08:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
PS could you activate your Wikipedia email address? I'd like to send you an email. Alternatively, you could email me, if you wouldn't like to receive email from other users. JFW | T@lk 08:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Once more

Look, please don't take this personally. I do not want to fight with you over such a trivial matter as a neologism. Your contributions are not only valuable, but necessary. There are comparatively few editors here that have the kinds of credentials you obviously have. Please reconsider. - Lucky 6.9 17:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh...OK. Do feel free to take time off if you feel it's necessary, but please don't abandon the project. When you're feeling better, come on back over and read some of the how-to's. You don't have to sign in to do so. I am truly sorry to have made you feel this way. It was never my intent. - Lucky 6.9 17:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Olimarthewondercat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Olimarthewondercat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)