User talk:AaronY/Archive 2

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, William Fuller (football), was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Joseph White
I have noticed your expansion, and removed the deletion notice. - Mike Rosoft 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Frank Morris.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Frank Morris.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I responded there. Quadzilla99 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan, FAC?
Hey there, I just wanted to ask when you want to bring forward MJ as a FAC. After your work with the peer review (and defending the article against the ever-cuddly Vandal of the Day (TM), duh) I think it looks very well. —Onomatopoeia 13:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I submitted it for a lookover on the WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading list. Since I've waited this long I'm tempted to wait a little longer or maybe we should just skip it and go ahead with the FAC as it's taking forever for them to get to it. What do you think I/we should do? Quadzilla99 14:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing I would also like to do is to get somebody to put it back on semi-protection while it goes through FAC. Quadzilla99 14:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I say just go ahead with the FAC, many improvements can be made on the fly. If not, I will be tempted to put in (my recently shortened to 76kb) Wilt Chamberlain article first :) —Onomatopoeia 08:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I nominated it and have got my fingers crossed. Quadzilla99 10:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Color Change
I noticed you've made the orange in the player-box more intense (I believe you called it less red). Though I see why you did this, the color was agreed upon at the wikiBaseball-Player project page. See Template:Infobox_MLB_player for more information. SERSeanCrane 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's been talked over then no problem, the original didn't look even slightly orange to me at all. I really have no preference I'm not a Mets or Giants fan just saw those articles while browsing. Quadzilla99 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem, I took them all out. Quadzilla99 19:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally there is no discussion on that template or on any of WikiProject Baseball's archives over the color choices that I see. Quadzilla99 19:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Biological Value -- Critics Section
I was reading the BV article and it seems the the "critics section" is abnormally huge. I do not no where to start. I am new here. But I think that section should be summarized. It is poorly written. At the moment it is incoherent and unreadable. Cheers. --Angelhands 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't worked on that article in a while, although I did start it I am probably least involved with that article currently out of any of the articles I started. My laptop broke in September of last year, by the time I got it back from Dell in December the article had been through a serious edit war and changed a lot from my original version. I have been meaning to work on it. However, as I have been busy with other things here on Wikipedia such as Lawrence Taylor, Dwyane Wade, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Michael Jordan's articles, in addition to maintaining and working on the articles I list on my user page and starting new articles, not to mention my life outside of WIkipedia, I haven't had the time to do the research and work on it. You should talk to Yankees76 he appears to be a on wikibreak but he'll probably respond if you leave him a message. He'll probably even look over your work and give you advice. Just try to do your best, but remember everything you add has to be sourced. You really shouldn't put anything in there that you think or that is your personal opinion. Try to read up on it and put in sourced material that represents accurate scientific interpretation. Really there are a ton of criticisms of that method and the FDA developed the PDCAAS method because they deemed it flawed. The article was very short when I last left it (Sept 5), and really kind of poor (I've come a long way as an editor since then). Basically my summary of what happened to the article is that in bodybyuilding circles the method is sacrosanct and some of those editors tried to remove all criticism it appears to me maybe the whole thing got out of hand and the section became too long. If you do work on it your research probably shouldn't come from any bodybuilding related publications but from scientific journals. In other words Muscle & Fitness and FLEX probably wouldn't be the wisest sources. Quadzilla99 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just looked through the history of the BV article. Yankees76 is one of the editors responsible for creating an attack critics section. It seems Yankees76 was editing against another editor rather than improving the section. That editor is the last person I should contact. A summary of the critics section is highly recommended. The information is there. It just needs to be summarized. That is all. Currently it is unreadable. Is there a place to ask for this article to be cleaned up. Further, is there anyone else that may be interested in improving the article. This is silly editors fight each other and then leave the "critics section" in junk condition. --Angelhands 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well regardless of what you think of him I left a note over on Yankees talk page as he is one of the main contributors to the article and it will be of interest to him if any major changes are made. You could always put a cleanup tag on the section. Just cut and paste this     and put it directly below the section header. I personally don't agree with this, and I would probably be more in favor of beefing up the other sections. But seeing as to hoiw this is not likely to get done anytime soon do whatever you feel is best. You could also check out some WikiProjects and ask some of the editors over at some of the science projects to help you out. Quadzilla99 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally earlier I meant to say sacrosanct but typed it sacrosant, that's important because i linked it and it lead nowhere under the incorrect spelling. Quadzilla99 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone else that may be interested in creating a good article that has time. The criticism section should be at least readable, factual, and normal. It is quite abnormally large. Take a look at some of the references. Very dubious. I suggest overhaul the section when you get a chance in the future. The title is Biological Value, not Criticism of BV. This is an attack page and junk to read this. The tone is harsh and unecessary. I hope we can work together to bring it up to par. --Angelhands 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well like I just said a second ago, notify some people who appear to be knowledgeable on the subject. I'm doing so right now, see here. If you would like to you can just politely notify some other people who appear to be interested in subjects such as these (you'll have to look around see people who have edited Protein a lot or commented a lot on the Protein talk page) and see if they would like to help. Also like I said some Science WikiProjects might be a good place to find people like that. Keep in mind though that BV is considered outmoded and flawed by much of the scientific community and PDCAAS is considered the current, more effective method. They might also be critical of it or they might not have interest in it anymore. Quadzilla99 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Angelhands, why do you happen to make nearly identical edits as ? AndyCanada and his numerous sockpuppets were banned from Wikipedia for falsely accusing an administrator of making death threats - the same administrator  that blocked AndyCanada during the edit waring on the BV article and removing cited information while inserting dubious information with poor references (on one occasion, citing Yahoo search results!). I've noticed you've already begun removing requests for verification and  tags on the outdated and poorly sourced references that were placed by the above banned user. I find it very improbable that a new user who does "not know where to start" would know to remove these tags and would have the exact same viewpoint and word their edits so closely to a banned user.


 * I do not wish to have this discussion with you, yet again, but right now it is only your opinion that the tone is "harsh and uneccessary" in the criticism Biological Value article. Simply because the criticism section is large (and incidentally does not fall in line with your POV), does not mean the information or the sources are "dubious". Poorly written I can agree with, however if you begin removing material, I would suggest you have a airtight reasoning behind each edit.


 * You can start by explaining this edit - removing a citecheck tag stating you've "checked references. They are reliable." . You mean to tell me you've checked Thomas, K. Ueber die biologische Wertigkeit der stickstoff-substanzen in 1909 verschiedenen Nahrungsmitteln. Arch. Physiol., 219? I find that highly dubious - especially since the reference is incomplete. Yankees76 04:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically to summarize the above editor was a sockpuppet who asked for my help on the Biological Value article (which I started). I didn't realize this at the time and took a lot of time to notify a ton of science experts to work on the article (over 50 which took a while becuase I didn't know where to find them), not knowing he was a sock. The article does need work considering how simplified it is and how many tags are on it. Anyway Yankees identified him as a sock and tagged him, so I moved on and started the Michael Jordan FAC which I've been planning for months. I'll try to get back to the article, get the tags off of it, and see if I can get an expert to work on it later. To be clear I have no interest in the article at the current moment and would like to not be notified regarding it anymore. Thanks. Quadzilla99 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Biological Value
Thanks for the note - I remember seeing that article and thinking it needed to be dealt with when we were cleaning up some of the nutrition stuff in protein. However, I'm sorry to say I'm probably not of much help here; I try not to ever deal with a system bigger than a protein ;) Have you tried checking with a member of WikiProject Medicine? They might have a better sense of the practical utility of this measurement in a nutritional context. Opabinia regalis 07:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. The situation has changed somewhat but I'll look into it. Quadzilla99 08:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thnaks for inviting me to evaluate the article on Biological Value. I havent come across this particular method very frequently as I usually dont delve into this side of nutrition issues. But I do have the necessary expertise to evaluate or comment on the topic once I have read up a bit. I am currently busy in real life. However will get back probably in a week or two. I also know a few nutrition experts who might help me in case I am not able to do it myself.--Dr.saptarshi 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I look forward to your help. Quadzilla99 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Me being a gadfly again
I just wanted to explain why I changed the sentence from the Michael Jordan article which read, "He was named to the All-NBA First Team 10 times, All-Defense First Team nine times, and led the league in steals three times." I don't think you can gramatically justify the structure of this sentence. With the way it's punctuated, it seems like the third item in the series will be another All-NBA team, but it's actually something different: a steals title. It's a non-parallel construction. (Does this make sense?) You said that my version was choppy, and I won't argue with you, but I think we need to come up with a third option for this sentence to make it as clear as possible. Zagalejo 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree I was trying to think a better wording but I couldn't find one. I made a change that I think is better, feel free to comment. Quadzilla99 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting better, thanks. Now that I look at it the entire paragraph, though, I don't like how there are two "listy" sentences in succession.  I'll play around with it to see what I can do.  I actually think the intro could be expanded anyway, since there are a lot of other important facts that might deserve a mention.  Zagalejo 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordan
LOL, right. We've been having some edit conflicts. Note that I did include mention of his acrobatic dunks in the second paragraph. Zagalejo 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles Barkley
Hey, I stumbled upon Charles Barkley's article a few days ago and noticed that it was in terrible shape. It has a B rating, but has so much more potential than that. I've begun editing the introductory paragraph, college career section, and some minor changes all around (also started an article for his book, which did not exist). I was hoping that if you ever get some extra time, you could possibly help in raising the quality of the article. If possible, give it a look, and let me know your thoughts when you can. Thanks for your time. Zodiiak 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to and will. However, right now I'm working om MJ which will be an FAC in a day or two and am getting Lawrence Taylor's book in the mail in a day or two at which point I'll be adding more upgrades to the L.T. article. I'll start right now by adding some refs to the article. Incidentally I have seen that article when browsing and did a little work on it, such as adding the Moses Malone info and a little more. I actually have been meaning to give it an upgrade too but haven't been able to yet. I'll start by getting it referenced tonight. Quadzilla99 06:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great, any contribution, big or small, is much appreciated. Great work with the MJ Article, I edit a few things here and there at times, and noticed it was in great shape to some day be a FAC.  Thanks again for your time and contributions ;) Zodiiak 06:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem I was also the one who added the info about his favorite sports as I found it interesting. That's pretty cool that it's still in there. Quadzilla99 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordan FAC
Oh, I hadn't noticed it was already in the FAC process. I'll try to hold off on any major changes. Zagalejo 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand.
 * Just to explaoin what I was doing: The sportswriter (Alex Sachare) actually wrote that in the late 1990s (as clear from the note), and, from what I've read, it seems to be a commonly held opinion. Indeed, I know Jordan himself has identified the basket as the turning point in his career; give me some time to find a reference.
 * In any case, I just don't like the way that paragraph flows. There's nothing to signal a transition from "Jordan the third option" to "Jordan the star."  We say that he was less-important than James Worthy, but then all of a sudden he's a two time player of the year. Zagalejo 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is from the article "Michelangelo: Portrait of a Champion," by Roland Lazenby, author of Blood on the Horns. It's included in a 1999 Gold Collector's Series Basketball Magazine titled Michael Jordan: The Ultimate Career Tribute:
 * Jordan is quoted as saying, "That started everything. The confidence, the knowledge, and everything I gained from that, is without question the beginning of Michael Jordan as a whole" (p. 128).   Zagalejo 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the above is a Jordan quote within Lazenby's article. We don't have to say that the basket was a turning point; we'd just note that Jordan claimed it was. Zagalejo 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw your note on 's talk page; he really is busy until the end of March, and asked me to watch his page. You might try ; he's quite good at copyediting, and might be willing to do it if you ask. I do think the article can attain FA if editors will listen to constructive criticism. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll give him try, thanks. Quadzilla99 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to give it a pass within the next couple days. &mdash; Deckiller 20:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Biological Value
Thanks for your invitation to edit the medical related articles on Wiki Project,I would like to know if there are any particular sections that you are interested in redeveloping.If so,please send across the details about it.I will try to do optimum editing on those articles.

Medicine man 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan
I copyedited the article. I took out a lot of the "extreme" adjectives and generally reworded things. There may not have been fancruft in the article before: Jordan was "high flying" and "daring", however, it's just seems better to say "athletic" or "bold" instead. Thanks. Warhol13 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I completely agree. And you're point seems all the more rational when reading the Britannica article. Warhol13 09:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you edit by section (instead of editing the entire article) we won't have edit conflicts - I lost my last three sections :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, I think - looks good - you just have that one dead link to replace. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just struck part of my objects on the FAC; will check dashes next, and then read article tomorrow. Good thing I worked on the article before I saw all that negativity from Peter-somebody, which I just read :-)  Length is fine, citations are fine.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, everything else is good; I was going to re-read tomorrow when I have more energy. One thing you might do is go fix the dead refs I saw yesterday on Bill Russell :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I fixed the links on Bill Russell and checked them all (twice) they're all solid. What happened was that we recently made a decision to combine the accomplishments and legacy section as some of the information was redundant. Needless to say it was done sloppily by someone. Its fixed now. Quadzilla99 12:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When I say I checked them all, I mean I checked to see if any of them were dead and made sure that the ones that were blank were fixed. I didn't check the format in any of them. Quadzilla99 12:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Russell looks better now; I was afraid it would get chosen for mainpage in that state. It still has numerous bluelink footnotes that aren't fully expanded (publisher and date identified, etc.), which I hope will be fixed before it goes to the mainpage; if you all can't get to it sometime, I'll begin to chip away at it as I have time.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

hi
Sorry, can't do serious copy-editing until my return. Tony 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Gilchrist
Hey, thanks for your comments on the FA nom for Gilchrist. I copied your comments to the talk page and attended to them all individually there. Thanks for your support and time. The Rambling Man 15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Russell
I worked on Bill Russell for almost two hours, and there's still much more to do&mdash;all of the dashes are wrong. I left a summary of the problems&mdash;which took me by surprise and were far more extensive than I expected&mdash;on the article talk page. It's discouraging that articles get through FAC without the basics being attended to &mdash;I still don't understand when reviewers don't check for and comment on the basic structural items. Anyway, I typed it all up as hopefully it will be instructive for future NBA articles, and so that others can double-check my work. Pls have a look, and hopefully you can encourage the project members to finish up the final tweaking before the article is chosen for the mainpage. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to get to Jordan soon (I was really hoping to revisit it after Deckiller has worked on it, since he's a copyeditor whose work I highly respect&mdash;do you know if he's still planning to work on it? I value his work much more than a random editor from the LoCE.  Let me know if you know his status on MJ.)  I can't take on anything else outside of my regular duties right now; besides that I'm still catching up from two weeks of travel, I have two more weeks of travel coming up.  I'm confident that your/NBA future articles will be fine, considering knowledge gained from MJ.  (I was somewhat bugged by one FAC currently up, because even though I've put a huge effort into three articles submitted in the past by that Project, they've submitted a fourth article to FAC with the *same* problems&mdash;now that is discouraging.) I often put a lot of effort into one article in one area so that changes will be instructive to Project members.  For example, that stupid DASH thingie is a fairly insignificant nitpik on most articles, but is a bigger issue on sports articles, since they report so many numbers and scores.  The problem with the citations on Russell was mostly a simple matter of editors not being aware to include authors, dates, etc. when available, and simply using one parameter on the cite templates incorrectly (last in place of publisher).  I'll glance at the articles you mentioned as soon as I get a chance, but right now, my first priority is to get my income taxes submitted before I travel :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) You had me worried&mdash;I know my writing is often too brusque, as I tend to multi-task and hurry through things.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan
I am done with my edits for now. You'll note that I have been somewhat bold in chopping off parts from the "Washington Wizards comeback" and "After retiring as a player" sections, which in my opinion are the least important sections for a encyclopedia article on MJ, but were cataloging some relatively minor details at undeservedly great length (see WP:Recentism for a nice essay analyzing this phenomenon). Of course I'll understand if you/others disagree with my editorial judgments and revert some of these edits. Thanks for all the work you have put in responding to my (and other reviewers') comments on the FAC and willingness to rework the article. I honestly believe that it is in much better shape than when I first saw it. I'll glance over it once more on Saturday morning and put in my comments/vote on the FAC page. All the best! Abecedare 06:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Some reversions
Can you explain why some of my good faith edits have been reverted without any explanation. For example I tried to standardize the date usage (removing extra commas), the use of spaces (some sentences had two spaces before them, while others had only one). All these were reverted without any explanation. Please fix these. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you reverted the delinking of lone year (1986), without any explanation. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also wikilink foul line, which you reverted. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I explained on your talk page, I reverted some of them by mistake and immediately started to fix them. I think they are all fixed. Basically almost all of your edits are still in there, again I apologize. Quadzilla99 09:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will have another look at the article sometime later. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Jordan
Hi - I've responded on the FAC page. Lemme just reiterate that you've done an amazing job. You just need to do the last lap - I certainly don't think my objections are critical ones, but addressing them can lift the article from 80% to 90-95%. I strongly suggest you re-approach the article with a fresh mind and fresh eyes (as you've worked on this article for a long time). Rama's arrow 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Just wanted to extend my thanks here, and thank you for the Barnstar. It is greatly appreciated. If you need any help with any articles, feel free to contact me ;)  Zodiiak 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Pokey Chatman
Thanks for the head's up. I've also tagged them all with, which should move them up a little faster in the deletion queue. There's still a huge backlog for FUR, but it generally much faster than. I'll take a look through the user's other uploads to see if there is anything else I can tag in a day or two. I usually don't bother fighting with people who blank pages. It just isn't worth it most of the time. Talk pages make it easier to see the user's history, the diffs usually should be checked anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Thanks again. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Joseph White
Go ahead and merge them, I have no problem. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer the initial, lacking any other "Matthew White" with a J initial. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hopefully you know that personal attacks like this (silly and absurt) are against the Wikipedia rules. MM112 10:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, that's not a personal attack. Basically what I said was that we don't use pictures of people standing next to each other to establish the height of one. Your claim that Barkley is 6'5 because from a photo from afar shows he is one inch shorter that Michael Jordan is silly and absurd as I said. Barkley has stated he is 6'4.75 so you're correct, but as myself and two others pointed we go by listed height/weight just as the NBA and NFL does to keep things simple. Also we don't look at photos of people standing next to each other to determine height. See WP:OR. Quadzilla99 11:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New York Giants Article and Image
I enjoyed your work on the History of the New York Giants article and your inclusion of the - I think most of the photos I've uploaded which are on my user page are covered under the same rationale for fair use and Licensing - copies of most of these abound and nobody cares about copies used in articles - vintage photographs have value and if you were selling a good resolution copy it might have a slight value, but these low-res scans to illustrate a historical article, I agree, are fair use. I have quite a few Giants photos on my website Revmoran 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I took my lead from the Chicago Bears article which is a featured article and was on the main page recently. Incidentally I liked that piece you added about the exhibition game very interesting. Quadzilla99 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for those .pdf files - I did have a couple but the others were new for me. Revmoran 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan
Good work. Having been through 3 FAs, with considerable help from The Rambling Man, they're gruesome and really gruelling too, but worthwhile. The articles we took there emerged far better for the incisive comments we received and while it's a pain, it was good. You had a tough job on your hands, the article being so large and covering such a long career packed with notable achievements. When it passes, today, tomorrow, next month, you'll be covered in glory. --Dweller 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordan FAC
I just commented a second ago thanks for the notice anyway. Aaron Bowen 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. BTW, that images has been deleted. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I had that problem with several articles I wrote; someone lifted them entirely, and gave no credit to Wiki. There's a place to report it, and here's someone who helped me:   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling; been there done that ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
Just because I'm proposing that an article you're voting to keep be deleted does not entitle you to go around claiming I'm using one or more accounts abusively. What I've done is not a forbidden use of sock puppets. Yes, I posted first under an IP but registered when I needed to in order to complete the AFD; since then I haven't posted anonymously and I haven't voted on the AFD using either this account or an anonymous IP, so your sockpuppet tags have been removed from my user page as they are unwarranted according to WP:SOCK. If you continue to harass me I'll report you to an administrator. Consider this a first-level upv1 warning. Quartet 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies you never stated you were the ip although it was blatantly obvious, and you commented in a discussion under both your ip and your new username without stating so. Quadzilla99 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. You can remove the above text from your talk page if you want to. I just want you to know that it's not a personal vendetta against you or your articles as i'm actually going to be going through the countless other similar articles and recommending them for deletion as well. I don't plan on making too many friends doing that but i've noticed that wikipedia is starting to become a place where companies advertise and promote thier products without establishing any sort of notability. Check out Category:Brand name food products stubs; there are many articles added that are simply advertising.  Quar te  t  19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine it can stay, my record and accomplishments here are pretty impeccable, especially to anyone who knows my work even slightly. Also you'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see the original version which I created was not advertising, as it included a substantial criticism section which was deleted by another editor. Frankly as regards this article and Biological Value article (see above) I'd request no other comments regarding them be made on my talk page as they are not currently among my major projects or areas of interest. Quadzilla99 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Troll
I and Quartet are the same person if you can prove it. I will admit it and withdraw my nomination if you help me on the BV article and tell the Yankees to clean it up becuase it is undue weight. ProteinMax 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WTF? Completely false; you have nothing to do with me or my afd request.  Quar te t  19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to a great editor

 * Thanks but the FAC isn't over yet, don't jinx it! Quadzilla99 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right, but I can't see it failing at this point. Aaron Bowen 16:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)