User talk:168...

I am very sorry 168...Very sorry :-( User:Anthere

I hope you don't let this stop you editing here. Whilst I disagree with your protection of pages you were involved in, I do understand the point you were trying to make. I disagree only with your methods, not your intentions and I hope you'll be back. Angela. 17:00, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this has happened and I also hope that you will be back. BCorr € &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 17:07, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Likewise, me. --Lexor|Talk 17:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiments. Your contributions here are very valuable. &rarr;Raul654 17:17, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to 168...:] It just occurred to me that your "civil disobedience" campaign to have a certain user "banned" may have been based on some flawed assumptions about certain technicial aspects of a "ban". (In essence, it's not possible to ban a person.) Perhaps if you had understood these limitations, you would have seen the wisdom of the approach that I had argued for and which Anthere has now implemented (community action with sysop support). I am not writing to say "I told you so" but in the hope that you will see that some of your actions were, at least to some extent, based on some flawed assumptions, and that as a result you will cheerfully rejoin the fray.Peak 17:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't let all this nonsense drive you away. Your contributions to articles are both valued and worthwhile. Allow someone else to fight the idiots, and concentrate on the quality edits that we remember of you. Stewart Adcock 18:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Stewart Adcock's statement. -- Cyan 19:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

168, I only recently began following disputes on the DNA page, and was just informed that you are leaving Wikipidia. I hope you will reconsider. You and I have had edit conflicts in the past; this is not the time to rehash old feelings but I want to make clear, as I hope it was clear in the past, that I respect your knowledge and have valued your contributions to Wikipedia. I believe very strongly in the importance of a community of Wikipedians; that requires a good deal of compromise and patience on the part of contributors. This is not easy; I think most people -- certainly I -- sometimes fall short. That is why I have strived both to forgive others, and to ask others to forgive me. Sometimes I do not have the energy for this and have simply had to take a break from Wikipedia. I sincerly hope that this is what you are doing, and I hope you will come back to work with us. Slrubenstein

sigh
168, I am very upset to hear of your fate. I disagree 100% with what has transpired. The punishment in no way fits the crime. And there simply is not enough forgiveness in this case. With such injustice, I fear we will fall into a French Revolution scenario, in which everyone goes on trial for trivial things, and the guillotine is invoked on one and all. I suppose we each need to wonder...who's next. You continue to have my support. I value your work and your efforts. Kingturtle 00:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nobody should be happy when the human equivalents of hyper-aggressive bees set up territory here. Actually, I unfairly demean the bees. At least they are protecting a hive that has something of value in it, real honey and not swamp gas. Don't let the hornets win. "French Revolution" is the appropriate simile, I fear. Somehow we have to have a society that sorts out the hornets. P0M 21:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

After reading up on what has transpired, I agree with Kingturtle and P0M. You seem to have been stripped of your powers by a developer who has now made the same mistake(without causing anyone to bat an eye) that you made. Hopefully this can all be sorted out and you will get your powers back. Keep up the good work and don't let anyone get to you. Perl 00:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mav v. 168...
The request for arbitration in Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168 was accepted on April 20, 2004. Please present evidence at Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168/Evidence. Fred Bauder 11:17, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I hope you'll decide to resume contributing here. You're contributions to our articles have been very valuable (I'm thinking of DNA in particular). &rarr;Raul654 05:23, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * I second that. But the way many users treated you earlier this year was shameful, so I can understand your reservations about returning. 172 10:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)  13:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedians
Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians -- Zondor 09:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Chemical synapse FAR
Chemical synapse has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cell membrane
The Cell membrane article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Action potential
Action potential has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

FAR
nominated Action potential for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 18:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Entropic


A tag has been placed on Entropic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Pam D  23:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Genetic program


The article Genetic program has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "A metaphor that lacks the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Aquaporin
Aquaporin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)