User talk:BigHaz/Archive 20

hi
Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)

Fact: Circumcision is believed to decrease a man's risk of getting HIV Fact: Circmcision is believed to INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia, and some think even other STD's.

The article on "circumcision" mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once.

Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my ONE sentence I want to add? Thanks here's the New York Times article... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y

I used to love Wikipedia until I went to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can sympathise with what you're saying, but I'm not sure there's much I can do about it at present. The sentence you've been trying to add is a problematic one, given the reference you're citing. What the reference says is that circumcised men are more likely to report those infections, rather than that the procedure itself is believed to increase the risk of the infections, as you're writing into the article. Secondly, the article dates from 1997, so it's around a decade old now, and as some of the reversions point out, that's pretty out of date in the medical world. Do you have a more recent study you can cite which demonstrates that kind of thing? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brisbane
Just a reminder that WikiProject Brisbane needs your help. There have been a number of changes to the project page over recent days and I hope you could spare some time to take a look, be bold and add some touches yourself.

There is plenty that needs to be done to get more Brisbane articles up to FA standard. Please come and discuss this and lets see if we can build up this project.

Your detials were taken from Category:WikiProject Brisbane members Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 05:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Aust School
I nominated this template for deletion, because it had exactly the same qualities to the Template:Infobox school and inferior structure with worse aesthetics. That's why I was replacing the templates with the Infobox school, but after the first few blunders I kept the template in Australian English, although the template changed. I hope you understand. STYROFOAM1994 Don't age bias me! 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do. I was slightly careless on the reverts regarding the variety of English, so feel free to change those infoboxes back accordingly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Greater Slovenia
Take a look at Articles for deletion/Greater Slovenia (2nd nomination). Slovenians try to delete the article Greater Slovenia as if the concept never existed. Please participate in the discussion, the article has been thoroughly sourced. -- Imbris (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why an uninvolved user (my only experience of Slovenia is spending a magical day there early last year) is being canvassed to take part in this discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just reminded you with very carefull aproach to take a look and participate. Nothing more. -- Imbris (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly call it a neutral suggestion myself, but everyone's welcome to their own opinions. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have the time, can you tell me why you choose in the earlier RfD to vote for the keeping of the article. Do you feel that it should be deleted or perhaps renamed. -- Imbris (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My rationale for advocating "keep" in the first AfD was outlined in my comment there. I haven't yet had the chance to read over the arguments and the article this second time round, and may not have that chance. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision
Hello, you appear to have listed yourself as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. A discussion is currently ongoing on the talk page on reform of this projects goals and organisation. Proposals have been made on the future covering and scope of WikiProjects relating to the Eurovision Dance Contest, Eurovision Song Contest, and the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. These proposals include possibly re-naming WikiProject Eurovision to WikiProject Eurovision Song Contest and starting a new project called WikiProject Eurovision Dance Contest. As a member of this project, you may wish to give your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Thank you. Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2008
This newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers
I just remembered I forgot to thank you for watching my userpage/RLC article during those personal attacks. So thanks. I'm too poor to buy you a barnstar. Scalene (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 't Is OK
I have nominated 't Is OK, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/'t Is OK. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- JediLofty UserTalk 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Academy of Science of the Soviet Union
I've restored the correct figure denoting the celebration of the Academy's 220th anniversary in the entry on Harold Innis. I changed the wording slightly to clarify things by calling it "the country's Academy of Sciences." I'm not sure why you simply substituted the figure "20" for "220". There is no documentary basis for your change, especially in an entry that has been extensively peer-reviewed, awarded feature article status and which appeared as feature article of the day on June 2, 2008. The entry Russian Academy of Sciences states clearly that the academy continued as a Soviet institution after the Russian Revolution in 1917 so there is the continuity that adds up to 220 years. Bwark (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it because the maths seemed shaky at the time, although I didn't see the mention of it being founded in the 1700s when I checked that article. The fact that an article has been featured on the main page doesn't magically make it immune to vandalism or anything, and it is quite plausible that a comparatively minor typographical error can sneak through review. I know because it's happened to me before. In the event, yes you're quite right that this wasn't an error or vandalism, but I would suggest not being quite so defensive about process here, for the reasons I've outlined above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yes, I guess I'm a bit defensive. Sorry about that. It's probably the product of so many months of intense work on the entry. I recognize there's a legitimate question here. How could the Soviet Academy of Science be celebrating its 220th anniversary when the Soviet Union itself was founded in 1917? At the same time though, I'm puzzled about why you substituted "20" for "220." The figure seems pulled out of the air. When I'm editing, I try to cite a source for all significant facts. If I couldn't find a definitive source, I would probably raise the issue on the entry's discussion page. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to look over the Innis entry so carefully and thanks for your reply on this page. Defensively yours, Bwark (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I plumped for a "20th anniversary" as seeming more probable than a "220th" for three reasons. Firstly, it's quite easy to believe that someone simply pressed the same key twice, producing 220 instead of 20 (200 could also have happened, of course, but it didn't). In my experience, that's a pretty common error (or "errror", if you will). Secondly, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (flawed because I couldn't remember exactly when the USSR was founded, it was early in the morning here) and figured that 1925 (20 years before the anniversary in question) would have made sense as an occasion. The USSR, I knew in my sleep-addled state, had been founded at some point around the end of WW1, and saying that their academy of sciences would have taken a few more years perhaps to set up stands to reason, as there was a civil war to resolve and generally the trappings of a new state to create. Thirdly, it also struck me that a 220th anniversary is an odd thing to celebrate, although I know very few institutions which are that old. A 20th anniversary, however, is something which makes more sense to celebrate. In the event, of course, none of those three rationales were proven correct. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good to question what's reported in entries but rationales or theories need to be checked out. As a retired journalism professor, I'd say there is no substitute for thorough research. As an historian with a first class honours degree, I'm sure you'd agree. Bwark (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Had I been thorough enough, I would have found the information explaining the apparent inconsistency on the article. As it was, I wasn't, but I'm glad we can both agree that we were both acting in good faith. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Akon
BigHaz, regarding this edit I actually agree with the removal of the birthplace in the absence of a reliable source, but as written the paragraph suggests he was in fact born in St. Louis. -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was editing from work and must've got the prepositions (from St Louis to New Jersey) round the wrong way mentally. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)