User talk:A.J.1.5.2./March07

Vandalism of St.Lawrence College
I see you added Richard Gunn to the St.Lawrence College article but I can't find any evidence that he is notable. I have undone the edit but feel free to restore it if you can provide evidence. Pgr94 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct I was just spamming the school with an alumnus' name to see if anyone who went there was looking and editing the page. So although Rich was an alumnus he is not yet famous. I also went there and am not yet famous, which is sad. Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dr Alethea Tabor
An editor has nominated Dr Alethea Tabor, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

de;eted article
Please work on the article in userspace and then move it to the articlespace when it is not a copyright violation. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your attack on Pete.Hurd
Od Mishehu 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
 * 2) Please be civil towards other Wikipedians.
 * Surely it was not disrupting Wikipedia - I have had a false claim made against meas well, so surely he is defaming me as well. I have made my point on the page that I am meant to. I am only trying to bring the academic arguement to more people, I feel strongly that these people deserve regognition, but whenever they appear they are instantly removed. Why?? They are notable for trying to make a difference. Curious Gregor
 * Next time you do something like that you'll be blocked. It's as simple as that. WP:POINT was written for exactly those kinds of disruptions. ~ trialsanderrors 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So we are saying that the old boys network is alive and well. I have made my case yet he does not seem to have to make a case for himself. Block me all you like. I shall know that I am correct in my actions. It was an attack on Pete Hurd in the manner he attacked me, I reciprocated. I explained my sockpuppetery case against him. I feel it was fair, even though it was based upon a logical fallacy. If we examine WP:CIVIL It includes the line that not being civil can include calling for people to be banned. So why are you being uncivil towards me. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 10:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pete actually provided detailed evidence. If the evidence stands up or not is a different question, but that's why we have the system to have sockpuppet suspicions looked at by other admins. Your posting was by your own admission simply retaliatory. Blocking is not banning. Bans can only be implemented by the community. ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thick and thin (phrase)
An editor has nominated Thick and thin (phrase), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Henri Kagan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Od Mishehu 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the speedy tag. Notability is clearly asserted now. ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Chemist
The category that you created is superfluous - there already exists a Category:Chemists. Please stop putting chemists in the category - and if you don't mind, revert the edits that you have already made. The category itself will redirect to the proper category. Best, DLand TALK 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done happily - I did not revert changes as all but Stork (I think) did not point to chemists so they do now. It was an honest mistake though so no need to be so gruff. I have never seen the chemsits category before. Now I have and I shall dedicate some time tomorrow with populating the list some more. Also I have no idea how to revert pages, could you send me to where you find out. Many Thanks - Curious Gregor TALK |undefined

License tagging for Image:FavorskiiReaction.png
Thanks for uploading Image:FavorskiiReaction.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bechamp reaction
Hey there. In case you're not already working on it, you might want to make sure to include a description of what a Bechamp reaction is and what's important about it. Thanks. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007
The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Kelk Ingold
Hello! Twice in a row you have tried to put Category:Chemists into the article on Christopher Kelk Ingold. I have on both occassions reverted your changes, as he is already categorized in Category:British chemists, which in turn is a sub-sub-category (or so) of Category:Chemists. (He is also in Category:Chemist stubs, which is also in turn included in Category:Chemists...)

Please refrain from adding people directly to Category:Chemists, instead, put them in to the appropriate subcategory. (See: Category:Chemists by nationality, Category:Chemists by sub-specialty.)

Thanks in advance! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Your SSP Reports
Curious Gregor, I have deleted your SSP reports due to the retaliatory nature of them. Please do not make such accusations to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated above it was a valid case and in no way retalliatory. As the evidence showed Meatpuppetery was admitted to. Please can you all stop ganging up on me just because I am a newer user. In the last week I have seen how cliquey Wikipedia really is. I have put in some good contributions and yet everybody seems to want to get rid of me. - Curious Gregor TALK |undefined - Synthesis for all 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly trying to tell us you couldn't tell that this "admission" of meatpuppetry was a joke? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a scientist, where a sense of humour and imagination is perceived as frivolous. So in England it is trained out during a scientist's undergraduate degree. We tend to only discuss science and science fiction and listen to opera. Whilst our only social interaction occurs during LARPs. - - Curious Gregor TALK |undefined - Synthesis for all 12:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Chemsitry Comments
I have noticed that you seem to spend a lot of time commenting on chemistry articles, claiming that they need to be either put in context or wikified. I was wondering if you could put in context your own level of knowledge in chemistry, so that the articles can be reeditted to be applicable to your own level of knowledge. With the chemical reaction stubs, I have been assuming that people will generally be looking at them if they have a basic level of chemical knowledge (i.e. one of about an A-Level student in England) and will not need a full explanation of why the reaction proceeds as it does. If this does not fulfil your ideals what else will I need to add, complete mechanisms with comments of facial and stereo selectivities and such. If so this is simply not possible as there will be a large amount of repeated information on Wikipedia. Please get back to me on this topic. - Curious Gregor


 * Hello! Eh. Lately I've indeed been editing chemistry articles; BUT only to remove improper categories (such as those you added to, well, a damn lot of articles). Using AutoWikiBrowser. On some, tags such as have been posted, but not many. I may have edited one or two chemical reaction stubs, but I don't know which ones. Point out more specifically which articles you refer to and I'll see what I can do. Do note, however, that my knowledge of chemistry is extremely basic, and my contributions to chemistry articles have only been clean-up/maintenance work.  Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Its okay. I'm a qualified chemist, but you seem to be suggesting for example on the Bechamp Reaction that more detail is needed. To me it seems clear. Also on the category front, they were not incorrectly labelled. I have been putting them into the topmost category they can go into so as to create a list of all the chemists that appear on wikipedia. This is because it is otherwise hard to see who may or may not need to be added. I have been finding your editting very unhelpful in removing them from this category. I have not said anything as you seem likely to start an edit war. I have made suggestions in the ways to improve wikipedia about categorisation as it is currently a very poor set up. I would appreciate your help in getting this idea across to m ore people so we can rectify our disagreement about categorisation. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your thinking, but the current classification guidelines state that they shouldn't be included in top-level categories if lower-level categories are available. Why? Because otherwise the categories would become mindbogglingly big. Not in the case of Category:Chemists perhaps, but think of Category:Politicians... see Categorization, point 3. As you do have a point, we still have List of chemists - which you suggested be deleted (or, well, merged into the Category namespace). You should know, however, that there are ways to extract data from a category and its subcategories using some tools, see for example User:PockBot. Just as a last note, please refrain from adding articles to top-level categories for now, and instead wait to see if you manage to push through your policy changing suggestion - that is however not very likely. Cheers! Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I shall continue doing it my way, you can keep doing it yours. For Chemists it is stupid to classify them by country as if they are notable there impact will spread worldwide and they do not necessarily work in the countries they came from. For example the Curies should only be in the category Polish Chemsits by your way of thinking. However, this would confuse many people who incorrectly believe them to be French. Whilst if they are in the uppermost category for Chemists then they an be found. I cannot see why you think the policy change is foolish, I have talked to other users on wikipedia who believe that the idea has some merit and would make it a much more intuitive website. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have thought some more on your reclassification and think that you would be far better off reclassifiying them all according to their subspecialities. This again would be more intuitive. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you will not keep doing it your way. Doing so, while knowing that it is against community consensus (as expressed in Categorization), will be considered disruptive editing (vandalism, in other words) and will get you blocked in no time. However, you seem to have misunderstood my way of thinking: you seem to think I am suggesting that articles be placed in ONE sub-category only. This is not the case. Your example, Marie Curie, is classified under Category:French chemists, Category:French physicists, Category:Polish chemists, Category:Polish physicists, Category:Radioactivity, Category:Discoverers of chemical elements, and many others. In other words, subcategories are not mutually exclusive: however, a inclusion subcategory in a subcategory excludes inclusion in a category higher up in the tree as the article then will be included twice. Do you understand? Classifying them all by subspecialities might be OK if these subspecialities are outlined with a proper definition, preferrably written in Category:Chemists by subspeciality which I suppose would be a good name for a category that would include your hypothetical speciality-categories. Whatever the case there is no need to replace the Chemists by nationality-categories. Do you understand? Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) User:TerriersFan apparently agrees with me, in a quite straightforward manner. Cheers. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He doesn't agree with you, you got rid of diocese of Canterbury and kept Church of England, he did the opposite. Also I feel that subsections of the church of england are good categorised in that manner, whilst chemists are best not categorised by location. If you think of a famous chemist, do you immediately think, "Oooh I know where he came from". No you think "Oooh I know what work he is famous for carrying out, therefore identifying the field." This is where your reclassification fails. Hence, you are in fact making wikipedia less user friendly. Also from Marie Curie you can see taht people have incorrectly indentified her as French, which she most definitely was not. Rather she should be categorised in Category:Chemists who worked in France - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When I removed the Diocese of Canterbury category, it did not exist. It does now, and it is a subcategory of Church of England - and as thus Church of England should be removed. And TerriersFan did remove it. Whatever the case, I don't think you see my point: I'm not saying "no" to categorizing chemists by sub-speciality, as you can do... both! So go ahead, classify them according to sub-speciality. Just don't try putting them in a top-level category when a more specific low-level category exists, just as Categorization states. Category:Chemists who worked in France does not exist and should probably not either, as Category:French chemists will do - Marie Curie lived most of her life in France and was as thus French. She was ALSO Polish, as she was born there. The category name is "French chemists", not "Chemists born in France". Do you see my point? Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So let me get this correct. If you loved in America for a portion of your life you would consider yourself American? A French chemist would be a Chemist who is french, not a chemist who worked in france, this is just the way the english language works. So it may just be a misunderstanding on your behalf. I also still contest that chemsits can not be defined by geographical regions, like politicians can. This is because politicians will work for one specific nation (geographical entity) whilst chemists do not. I have asked a number of fellow chemists if they would ever categorise chemists by natiojnality and they all agreed that it would be a clunky categorisation, with little or no meaning. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(section break without actual use)

 * No, but if I lived in America for most of my life, I would consider myself American. In example, I was born in Dalarna in Sweden, but at the age of three I moved to Gotland, so I consider myself a Gotlander. But I would also categorize myself as as from Dalarna where I to write a Wikipedia article on myself. Whatever the case, how I would categorize myself or how you would categorize yourselves is of no importance. Marie Curie is considered french by a number of reputable sources. See WP:ATT: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Categorizing chemists by nationality is of meaning. I can image thousands upon thousands of Swedish children being asked to write about a Swedish chemist in school. Or Portuguese children writing about Portuguese chemists. It is of interest to historians - and I do think historians have more use of Wikipedia than chemists do. Nevertheless, this categorization by geographical entity is not in conflict with your proposal to categorize them by subspeciality. Let's have both! Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 10:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion
 A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. VegaDark 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jarvic 7
An editor has nominated Jarvic 7, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

>
Hello again! Instead of manually inserting all those sup-tags and listing the references one by one, I'd advise you to take a look at Footnotes. It might make your work a lot easier. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)