User talk:Mgnelu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mgnelu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to American Chemical Society has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw you responded to Aboutmovies re: your recent edits, but it appears from the above warning that Aboutmovies simply welcomed you and that Anonymous Dissident was the one who gave you the warning, so you might want to repeat your explanation on his/her page. Katr67 (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed it was Anonymous Dissident who reverted my edit, and I got to his page which confused the heck out of me. I thought that administrators can use this account to take care of business and I (wrongly) assumed it was Aboutmovies (I saw both the welcoming message and the revert notice one after the other). Eh, these newbies... Mgnelu (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If you consistently use edit summaries, you will have less problems with people thinking your edits are vandalism. It it is also helpful to put something on your userpage so it isn't a redlink. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Usually I do write summaries, but that night I added the navigational box to so many pages that I gave up filling up the summary boxes. My userpage will stay redlink for a while. I have my own website if I want to write stuff about myself :) Mgnelu (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Mgnelu, I don't know you. But I actually do take time to make sure things are vandalism before reverting. However, I never reverted you. If you look at the "History" tab on a page you will be able to discover who did what. I did welcome you as a new editor to provide you with some good links to read through, which I suggest you do. But I second Katr67's suggestion that you use edit summaries. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warm welcome. I hope you read my excuse (above) and you will forgive my message on your talk page - you can delete it if you don't want it there (or let me know and I will do the honors). Mgnelu (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael T. Bowers

I did not state that he was not notable, I stated that the may not be notable. It is incumbant upon you as the article's creator to prove notability. Please read WP:BIO and WP:PROF, make the nescessary changes, and I will be happy to remove the tag. This was simply the result of new pages patrolling where we are encouraged to tag new articles with with the proper templates so that they can become encyclopedia worthy. May I also suggest, that if you plan on creating any pages in the future, that you ensure that they come up to standards before you save the page. This will obviate the need to tag the article. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may not understand my intentions. I am only asking for confirmation of his notability as it concerns inclusion in an encyclopedia. If he is in fact worthy of inclusion you should not have any difficulty finding proof of this. Or if I might restate, the article is not about mass spectrometry, it is about Michael T. Bowers, who happens to be a mass spectrometry specialist. And yes, WP:PROF criteria #2, would be sufficient. Is there any reason you have not tried to make the needed changes yourself? Nevertheless, I do not deem this a significant problem and will make your desired change. I do have this page on my watchlist, and may revisit this issue if actions to correct this problem are not taken. Best of luck. Mstuczynski (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am only in doubt because you continue to refuse to make any references to his notability. WP:BOLD encourages you to add that link. Would Bowers himself publish a paper with no citations? If you think he is worthy, show why. Otherwise you are just asking people who are not familiar with this man to do your work for you. I have looked him up and I am pretty confidant that I could prove his notability myself. The point is, I did not decide to add him to this encyclopedia, whereas you did and thus are obligated to show why. You seem to spend more time arguing with me than improving the article to encyclopedic standards. Mstuczynski (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)