User talk:Neparis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I leave you a message, you can reply here or on your talk page. If you reply here, I will reply here.
Please click here to leave me a new message. I will reply here.
Please be patient though as I may be slow to reply.

Contents

[edit] Mercury poisoning article

Thanks for cleaning up/improving the "Sources of exposure" section I added yesterday! :) I added that some mercury compounds (e.g. dimethyl mercury) can penetrate thin layers of protection to the section dealing with dermal exposure to mercury, but I can't seem to get the wording right. Feel free to improve it if you feel so inclined! ~ Danelo 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for your excellent work on the page. I think your wording is good. Perhaps repeating the word "skin" might improve readability slightly? ("bare" -> "bare skin", "insufficiently protected, skin" -> "insufficiently protected skin"). Thinking of further improvements, I might add a few citations, and increase the amount of cross-referencing between this page and other related ones such as Mercury_(element) and Minamata disease. -- Neparis 10:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I posted a comment on Mercury poisoning's talk page which might interest you; please check it out when you have the time. :) ~ Danelo 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add a few well referenced paragraphs and possibly images on cultural uses of mercury. the practices are a potential source of exposure but it may be an informative topic on its own - not sure whether it should go in mercury poisoning, mercury, or elsewhere. thoughts? thanks Ggaretano (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good well-referenced content belongs in as many articles as it has significance to the subjects of the articles. Duplication across articles is not an issue. When adding new referenced content, Wikipedia's most important requirement is to maintain a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and to ensure that different views are given appropriate weight per WP:UNDUE. I think there are several potentially relevant articles. There is an article on the Santería religion, for instance, which might be of interest. Some time ago I added a short mention and citation to Goldman et al (2001) regarding ritual use of mercury in Santería, although my addition met some resistance (another editor, 67.124.83.117, removed it, then I restored it). I notice you have published your own recent work on the same topic, PMID 16393659, which seems like an interesting, highly relevant paper that could be cited. Wikipedians are allowed to cite their own publications in Wikipedia articles, subject to certain guidelines (see WP:COI). If you feel uncomfortable citing your paper, I would be happy to add a citation to it myself. - Neparis (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acrodynia-Mercury poisoning merger proposal

I realize the acrodynia-mercury poisoning merger was originally your proposal and that I wasn't giving credit where it was due. I edited my comment ([1]) to reflect this; feel free to edit the parts about yourself if you want to. ~ Danelo 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that. Thanks. Neparis 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boldface matrices

Why are you changing all the matrices to boldface? That does not seem very useful. While boldface is indeed sometimes used for matrices, in my experience they are more commonly set in the normal mathematical font. Wouldn't it be better to keep to the convention that is already in use at the article? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi Neparis, just wanted to let you know that I moved the reference in gadolinium back from "external links" into a new "general references" section. If something is described as a reference, it means the author of the page used it in writing the article, but an external link is not. It may sound trivial, but it begins to matter when the article goes up for GA or FA and people say, "most of this article is unsourced". Thanks for formatting the other ref. Cheers, Walkerma 02:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Walkerma, an uncited external link that is manually added to a References section built from <references/> is generally a mistake. Whoever originally added that EL did not cite it as a reference anywhere in the main text. Uncited ELs that are not used as references belong in External links according to WP:EL. For ELs that are used as references they belong in Further reading/Books/Bibliography according to WP:REF. If the original author of that EL used it as a reference in writing the article, he/she should have cited it in the main text and linked it as a reference to comply with WP:EL, but he/she has not done that. The General references section heading does not comply with WP:MOS and WP:LAYOUT. The fact that the EL appeared in References does not necessarily mean it was used as a reference for the article. Without more evidence, it is more likely it was put there by mistake. Could you explain in more detail what is the evidence that makes you think the author used it as a reference? By the way, I think there is plenty of scope to improve the article; as it stands it is a long way from FA and not quite GA, although you make it seem as if it were an imminent FAC or GAC! - Neparis 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The reference wasn't added as a mistake - it was added by Mav (in this edit), who wrote many of the element articles. He's a longtime Wikipedian I met at Wikimania last year. In 2004 inline cites were almost unknown, and this was the standard format for nearly all references. (Also, this source was used for many other element articles, I think.) If a key ref gets "demoted" to an EL, we lose information on the source of much of the content - even if that is in a general references section; I was thinking of this paragraph of MOS: "All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links". We've used "general references" sections in several chemistry articles (not just mine!); I'm pretty sure this was policy at one time, but maybe it's changed - I can't see it listed now. Should we change the format to "Footnotes" (inline) and "References" (general), as used in this recent FA and also this one? Or should we follow the style of the helium article?
As for "almost GA" - I had to check back through five years of article history once, looking for the sources of an article! That's what I was thinking of. Let me know how you think we should format the refs sections, Walkerma 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kincardine and Mearns

Thanks for neatening this up. Looks good. Hadrianheugh 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added some further information to the article and didnt feel adept enough at your fancier formatting. If you have time you might add the reference citations I have supplied on the article talk page Talk:Kincardine and Mearns. Thanks again. Hadrianheugh 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. The quick-and-dirty way to enter inline citations is like this: <ref name="drunkenlout">I B Bothersome (2000), Memories of a Drunken Revelry, Rambling and Sons Ltd: Edinburgh</ref> To cite the same publication again somewhere later in the text, just enter <ref name="drunkenlout"/>  (note the /) — no need to enter the full details again. Adepts prefer to take this a stage further by using a citation template, which uses a pair of {{ and }} to enclose the reference details, making them into a template, thus <ref name="drunkenlout">{{cite book | author=I B Bothersome | title=Memories of a Drunken Revelry | publisher=Rambling and Sons Ltd: Edinburgh | year=2000}}</ref>. If you're still reading this and not bored to death, you may be ready to be illuminated by the wisdom of Category:Wikipedia templates. - Neparis 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. Next time I ll try to learn the above format when an article is started with that protocol. Cheers. Hadrianheugh 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

You deserve a barnstar. Axl 17:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The E=mc² Barnstar
To Neparis, for numerous contributions to medical and scientific articles. Axl 17:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afford

Hi there, seems that you are getting active in editing chemistry article and best wishes continued fullfillment there. Now about this afford thing. Professional chemists use the word "afford" widely because it is useful. It avoids the verb "create" which has a god-like de novo connotation and it avoids awkward applications of the words "make" or the slightly better "form," which imply human involvement. In any case, I encourage some circumspection as you encounter this and other less familiar words deeply associated with the chemical culture. And again, best wishes.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am in fact very familiar with the term as it is used in pure and applied chemistry. I agree it is certainly the correct term to use in this context. The reason I was changing it was simply for the benefit of lay readers who are likely to be unfamiliar with it. While it is nice to be able to talk among specialists using our accepted technical terms, and while it does facilitate more accurate and efficient discussions by specialists, I think the articles in wikipedia serve a broader purpose; they are intended for a much wider audience than chemists. The expression "affords X" is undoubtedly cryptic and unnatural to the lay reader. I don't think changing it to the more direct, "makes X", "creates X", or "forms X", causes ambiguity or inconvenience even for specialists writing the article. I think it is a case where we should be prepared to make a little concession in our use of jargon to improve comprehensibility. If we can adapt our use of language even just a little to the needs of the larger audience of wikipedia, who tend to be put off by specialist jargon, it will attract more people to read and appreciate the articles. This is a case where I think it should be acceptable to use a simpler verb that has a straightforward obvious meaning for the lay reader. I'd be interested in your thoughts about this. I'd like to think we can work out some sort of compromise. Please do reply here. Regards, - Neparis (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Good comments. I think that most of the experienced editors are vigilant about jargon and sparing with specialized vocabulary, but it's always helpful to revisit the issue. It seems that we are fairly in agreement - and its not a huge deal to me. The overall balancing act is the extent that meaning is compromised by moving to more routine vocab. To me A plus B cant make C - only creatures and machines make stuff, it seems. Maybe a compromise word would be "yield." We'll probably discuss this matter again, I would guess. Also, a few words used in less familiar contexts is not unhealthy - encyclopedias are about educating and stretching. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In my view as a native English speaker, the verbs "make", "produce", "yield", "afford", which are all near synonyms, are all equally correct for the purpose of describing the operation of any physical or abstract process whose outputs are functions of inputs. If a process is described as "A makes B" (ditto for "produces", "yields", and "affords"), it does not imply the type of A, more particularly, it does not entail that A is either a creature or a machine. I don't think it's a big deal, but the order of increasing rarity and unfamiliarity to lay readers is: (1) "make", (2) "produce", (3) "yield", and (4) "afford". If you still object to (1) "make", maybe we can use either (2) "produce" or (3) "yield". I'd like to reach a compromise on this. Let me know what you think. I very much appreciate your taking the time to discuss it. Best, - Neparis (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestions are helpful. I think that I will go with "produce" and "yield" in place of "afford."--Smokefoot (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I am glad we have a compromise. Thank you for starting the discussion. Would you like to change the "affords" in alkoxide, or shall I? There is also a prominent "affords" in the lead of germane, where a "yields" or "produces" would seem more lay-reader-friendly; I hope you won't mind if I edit that? I'm not proposing a campaign against all instances of "affords" in WP chemistry. I'll end with a sincere well done on your many invaluable contributions to the chemistry articles. - Neparis (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I will grit my teeth and watch many noble "affords" be transformed by you or by me, whoever has the time and inclination. Leter.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
A little pain for the educator, potential gains for many lay readers? Neparis (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ

I have edited the section you recently improved (Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#What is the difference between a list and a category?). Your edit was definitely a move in the right direction. Could you look at the current version, I think that you might be able to improve the wording even more. Dbiel (Talk) 21:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. Since you invited me to have another go, I hope you won't mind that I did. My first thoughts are that "list sequence" seems redundant, "proper" is ambiguous, and "at the bottom of the article" is a purely technical detail that is distracting. I felt the section was in danger of becoming too verbose, so I tried to make it more concise. Let me know what you think. Please do try to improve it. - Neparis (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Furse (surname)

Thanks for your edits to Furse (surname). I had originally typed the titles in 'title case', i.e. where the nouns, verbs and adjectives are capitalised but the other words are not. I'm not sure why wikipedia demands sentence case, but who are we to ask? Happy New year Showjumpersam (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the thanks. I notice you and another editor are in a content dispute. Although neither of you has yet breached WP:3RR, I think there is a real risk that somebody else could soon describe the situation as edit warring and bring a case at WP:ANI or WP:RFC, which could lead to one or more editors being blocked with consequent damage to feelings and reputations, and loss of credibility in arguing one side of the content dispute. I think it would greatly strengthen your position if you could involve at least one additional editor, ideally an experienced admin, from the WikiProject Anthroponymy. Perhaps also try Talk:Smith (surname). Otherwise, you may find yourself outnumbered and outwikilawyered. Meanwhile, I'd recommend trying to keep the edit summaries scrupulously ice-cool, and identifying any issues on which you might be able to reach a compromise and offering an olive branch before things get any more heated, e.g. as a gesture of good will, you might consider offering to restore the gorse image the other editor inserted. Good luck, and Happy New Year! - Neparis (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
With reference to a disagreement over content on the Furse(surname) page, I am pleased to say that rational discussions are under way concerning how the article may be organised. For a time it was apparent to me, falsely or not, that my edits were being undone without explanation. This meant in practice deletion of large parts of the article. Thank you for your suggestion of diplomatic tools, however, in the case of the photograph of Gorse this was removed as the separate article on Gorse (another name for which is Furse as you probably now know) covers the area better and is the appropriate place for it. I would like to make it clear to all that I have no interest in fuelling a dispute over the content of any article. However, I am not content to see large sections of a page on a topic that is within the scope of wikipedia and has been okay-ed by at least three administrators since it was first written, be deleted just like that, before it is even complete in the wikipedia sense. However, as I say I believe more fruitful discussion is currently beginning and hope that the appearence of an "edit war" is no longer. Please see Celtus' talk page, and mine (talk) for the text. If you have anything you'd like to add to the discussion or article I would be more than happy to hear it. Have I allayed your concerns? Please do let me know if not. Best wishes, Showjumpersam (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope a constructive discussion does develop, but I see no sign that your attempted engagement with the other editor has had or will have a positive reaction. You really are shooting yourself in the foot by your choice of words in your edit summaries. No matter what the apparent provocation (e.g. even if an editor deletes large sections of text that were approved by three admins), it is always inappropriate and strictly against the Wikipedia policies WP:NPA and WP:AGF to describe good-faith edits by another editor, especially an experienced one, as "vandalism" or a "personal vendetta" in your own edit summaries, as you did: [2][3][4] If you continue like that, you will be blocked from editing by an admin, probably with zero warning. While I appreciate it can be extremely frustrating to see what you consider to be good edits reverted repeatedly, the policy is that you must always assume good faith in other editors. The golden rule is never ever ascribe a motive to another editor's edits when writing your edit summaries.
A good way to prevent edit wars is to avoid doing instant reversions (edit warring), and to seek to build a consensus on what to do by discussing the issues on an article's talk page. I am too busy elsewhere on Wikipedia to get involved in your content dispute. I am sure the WikiProject Anthroponymy is the right place to seek further assistance. Best wishes, - Neparis (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Sorry, haven't had much time to reply nor do much with the page due to other things.

The information on this page comes from my specific MA style/school and the information contained within pertains to my martial art style and was created by us, it also is commonly found information through any general MA search pertaining to Chinese Martial Arts. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mei Hua Chuan (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talking to IPs?

I made no changes to Bit and you're just talking to an IP. Do you do this often? --124.43.129.98 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit at 10:42, 19 November 2007 on Bit by 124.43.129.98. If your IP address is shared with other people, you can avoid getting irrelevant messages by creating a Wikipedia account. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:AIV guideline requires a level-4 warning, "except in unusual circumstances". An outrageous racist-sexist vandalism-only account qualifies as "unusual circumstances", and such accounts have been blocked in similar circumstances (no level-4 warning) on previous occasions. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
But he didn't vandalize after the warning. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Outrageous racist-sexist vandalism-only accounts have been treated as an exception that fits "the unusual circumstances" per the WP:AIV guideline and immediately blocked even without warning on previous occasions by other admins. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If you'd like, report him again. I'm a little hesitant though. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minerva Logo

See my reply on my talk page. Thanks. Sliwers (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] electrojets.com

I've just requested the addition of electrojets.com &ct. to the wikimedia blacklist. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree something needs to be done. The spamming is extremely persistent despite repeated user-warnings not to do it, and there is a large number of IP socks doing only a few spams each, making them ineligible for blocking. Perhaps the sock issue could go to SSP? I see Herby asked you to take your report to the local spam blacklist. I can lend a hand or post a !vote of support. Keep me posted. - Neparis (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Digging around some (& posted on Mdsummermsw's talk too). It certainly looks listable to me, maybe even skip the spam project and list it on the local blacklist - personally I'd BL it I think - seems to be quite disruptive looking at the page histories. Let me know if I can help - cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Added to local. [6] - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For both you benefits. Thanks for catching this - such disruption is exactly what the blacklist locally is about (& I've listed the three mentioned). Header levels are always an issue & I fixed that - just check that the three I did cover it (& list again if "new" sites arrive - often happens). For another time just provide as much info as you can (diff links, warnings etc). If you need help you know where I am! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Herby and Md, thanks to both of you for helping to deal with this. I hope we will start seeing less disruption on the affected pages. - Neparis (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tireless Contributor Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
To Neparis for all your hard work and by tirelessly contributing to Wikipedia. Hu12 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Noticed you edits to Template:Spam-blacklist header, then looked @ your contribs and thought one of these Barnstars was overdue. Good work! Cheers,--Hu12 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that! It is nice to know somebody else appreciates my contributions. Long way to go to catch up with your contribs — amazing! - Neparis (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome;) Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, an admin with as much experience as you have is a great asset to the project. I hope I might be able to ask you for expert advice on any tricky WP issues I encounter. - Neparis (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Username block

I responded on my talk page.   jj137 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a thank you note

Thanks for participating in my RfA!
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Nations

Thanks.. I'm not sure how that happened. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you



My RfA
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

[edit] TFD Closing

You posted a notice at WP:AN re Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_8#Template:Great_Western_Main_Line

  • FYI, that didn't require an admin, just implement WP:DELPRO#TFD and close it. It doesn't even matter that you participated in the discussion, since the nomination had been withdrawn, it's essentially a WP:SNOW/Common sense (WP:IAR) close. Obviously you wouldn't normally close a discussion if you had participated. If I'd noticed I would've closed it, but I've been away from TfD for several days, focusing on MfD. Although some would disagree with me, you can at least close any discussion that you have not participated in that is a clear keep or a speedy close for administrative reasons (like it shouldn't be on TfD period, it has been withdrawn, etc.)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was aware that non admins can close XfDs, but I prefer to follow the letter and the spirit of the guideline you cited:

"Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a 'speedy keep' and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well."

- Neparis (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, it does say that, my bad and thanks for reminding me of that. DELPRO may be a little on the conservative side on part of that, I don't know why it matters that it is "your own" withdrawn nomination. But this particular one was not a unanimous keep so I suppose the argument is that withdrawing the nomination doesn't necessarily actually end the discussion. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of meteorology topics (nominated for deletion)

The list of meteorology topics has been nominated for deletion. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Recently uploaded images

replied - TwoOars 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Your edit to my userpage

Yes I can explain it, I did it because a lot of users dislike redirects and so I changed it for that reason only. ~ Dreamy § 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had actually read my response, I didn't do it for myself, but for others that dislike it, I have dozens of e-mails requesting that they be changed, just so you know. ~ Dreamy § 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have already admitted to a mistake, stop attempting to order me around, I have been here longer, and have racked up more contibutions than you, and if you read the very first sentence of this you'll see that it clearly states that "user space still belongs to the community", so I am technically in the right with having edited the page, but in violation of a semi-policy. ~ Dreamy § 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, whatever, I probably should have mentioned it, but I thought it was much to trivial to bother mention it, ah well, sorry for not mentioning it. ~ Dreamy § 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did I revert?

If so, I certainly didn't mean to.  :-0 Silly rabbit (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. No I didn't revert. I just saw that you added vector bundle to the category and popped over to have a look. It occurred to me that I didn't entirely agree with the first sentence of the article, so I changed the word "geometric" to "topological." Perhaps the point is arguable one way or the other, but I think of vector bundles as more topological, and then the stuff one adds to them (e.g., a metric, distribution, etc.) as geometric. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vectors

Cleary the category is needed, but I'm not really sure where to draw the line for inclusion. My first thought is that Wikipedia has a number of definitions of a vector which aren't all related by some category or another. So I added vector (spatial), row vector, column vector, vector space, and other sundry possiblities. Then you populated the category with some other definition-related articles, and some other interesting selections like Poynting vector. I guess an inclusion-criterion might be various definitions of vectors and vector-like objects, and particular vectors that are of importance to mathematics and physics. Perahps this is too broad? Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gram negative cell wall diagram

I redrew the gram negative cell wall diagram (Image:Gram negative cell wall.svg). Is this satisfactory? I'm happy to make any changes. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will defer to the original author's opinion (TwoOars) to see what he thinks. I think you've created a very interesting new version. It looks good and it may be a good substitute, though I feel it would probably be better (clearer and more attractive) as a three-dimensional drawing like the original. Also, it seems to have lost several useful text labels that were in the original. - Neparis (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have given my opinion at [7]. I like the current version by Jeff for it's detail. But I'll leave it to Jeff and you to see if any improvements need to be made. I am slightly busy in real life, so I'll not be able to participate in these discussions in greater detail. Thanks for your efforts. :) - TwoOars 06:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake

Updated DYK query On 2 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gram-negative_cellwall-schematic.png

This request appears to have been completed. Please come to the Graphics Lab to see if the request has been satisfied. Thank you. XcepticZP (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. The original author and I both agree that the request has been satisfied. - Neparis (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank-you

I can has mop?
 Hi Neparis! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1).
I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being
an admin to the high standard that the community deserves.
Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Congratulations! Never seen a lolcat in an RfA until yours :-) - Neparis (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hehe... a lolcat in an rfa you say? :P Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That's just way out there tehre! =^_^= - Neparis (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

I know the guidelines (although it was perfectly fair for you to point them out). Sometimes removing the red links is just the best way to find out if anyone else currently thinks they're seriously plausible topics for future articles. (And no, I didn't reply on my own page. I think watching someone else's talk page in case they choose to respond is inefficient. Likewise, I don't think it's useful for me to watch somebody else's talk page on the chance that they might feel like replying to me.) Wryspy (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I like WP:BRD. It's a whole better than the original WP:BOLD which some people used as an excuse to make big changes and then dig in their heels as if WP:BOLD justified keeping whatever changes they made no matter how many people disagree. Wryspy (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
lol. I do hope to choose my own color. If I need to pay rent until I pick one, please let me know. Wryspy (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Right now, I'm focusing on wording it in a way that strikes a balance to say that people with both types of preferences need to respect the other people's preferences and be willing to adapt at times -- like how you've accepted my replying on your page for this exchange, which isn't exactly of earthshaking importance. Wryspy (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thought. I've reworked that sentence to try a different approach to the basic idea. Wryspy (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of XAD (resins)

A tag has been placed on XAD (resins), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Triwbe (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had indicated that the article was the result of a split from the XAD article in the edit comment, I probably would have changed the nomination to a PROD. I have no issue with the article being recreated if it has something more to establish notability. The time between nomination and deletion can be short if someone happens to drop in and see something, review it and then delete it. In this case the queue was small and this article matched one of the criteria that I use to select articles that I look at. So I saw it and followed through. Speedy deletion is based on the article content and not how long the article has existed. The old text exists in the original article and you can use that for the basis of a new article with a bit more to establish notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Lead Poisoning

Dear Neparis,

Yes I came across it while studying for my medical board exams in Kaplan USMLE Steps 2 and 3 Notes: Internal Medicine, Hematology, pages 176-177. Author: Dr. Conrad Fischer, MD, Assoc Program Director, Internal Medicine, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences Center at Brooklyn, Brooklyn New York. Edition 2007. Kaplan Medical.

I was surprised since I always connect Basophillic stip. with Pb poisoning. However, in Vit B12 and Folate def, you'll also see hypersegmented neutrophils.

Anyways, thanks for the message and back to the books for me.

Cheers,

Gorkhali (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll add a citation. - Neparis (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contrib

Hey there, I am sorry for deleting stuff. It was an accident, as I have little knowledge of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipskip (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles

The Invisible Barnstar
Thank you for your continued work and assistance on Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you for your contributions. The new focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)