User talk:Emcee

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.
 * User:Redwolf24/Bootcamp My own personal summarized Bootcamp.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 22:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

Are you Emcee or Redwold24? Or both? --Nottingham 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham and Hong Tran article
Managing Nottingham's behavior is not my responsibility. I warned him in regards to his incivil attack on you and suggested he take a different course of action, even suggested he stop editting the article while the AFD was in process. Anything he did after that is up to him. He seemed to have gotten too wrapped up in what is a rather minor article. Hopefully the forced wikibreak will do him good and he'll come back in a more cooperative state. As for the AFD, I submitted the AFD because I don't think Hong Tran is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. I also expressed my intention to change the article into a redirect or submit it for AFD prior to you and Nottingham going at it. The only reason I didn't submit it earlier was because the edit war and I wanted to see where it was headed. If the article survives the AFD then Hong Tran is notable enough to keep an article in the view of the Wikipedia community and Nottingham loses one of his reasons for purging the content of the article. Either way. Happy editting. --Bobblehead 15:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

KC Dems
Here's the link for the KC Dems endorsements. --Bobblehead 17:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Mediate us?
I will look at it on Monday. Thanks Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cantwell
Would you please respond to me at Talk:Maria_Cantwell? At least one of the things you have said is simply false. - Jmabel | Talk 07:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Antiperspirants (Health Effects)
You erased my work in the Antiperspirants page (Health Effects): erasing the work of others is a clear Wikipedia faux-pas. This is in very poor taste, especially considering that it was very well -referenced, mostly from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is a very high quality and reputable source.

Regarding your comment quetioning Aluminium's toxicity: it has been a known neurotoxin for quite some time. Please do research before changing the work of others. And NEVER erase their work, you may only modify or add to it.

Furthermore, when you provide your own references, please use the common referencing format.

Sorry, I forgot to sign this edit

Your recent modifications to this article are very good, those were the types of additions I was hoping people would make! Thank you!

I find your comments in my user-talk page somewhat confusing. I felt that each of the statements I wrote in that article come directly from the journal articles I cited. Perhaps you felt that the abstracts didn't sufficiently relay this, but since you also have a masters, you should be able to access the full text of those articles to confirm (through your school). I got the feeling that you didn't read the referenced journal articles, that you just removed the content and references without justification.

From the Etiquette guide: WP:Etiquette
 * Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible
 * Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle

From the Faux Pas: Avoiding_common_mistakes
 * Deleting biased content (remove the bias, not the content)
 * Deleting without justifying (which is what you did)

Of course, my comment "NEVER ERASE" wasn't completely accurate, but you really do have to provide item-specific justification. Especially when it's heavily cited, as my entries were. Just because you have edited wikipedia more than I have, it doesn't make my contributions any less valuable.

Anyway, sorry if I came across strongly or if my writing was too biased (perhaps both), but it's really frustrating to spend a few hours reading through all types of neuroscience journal articles (etc.) to find high quality relevant research just to have it erased and replaced with a few high level cancer-specific webpages. Let's work on that article and make it reflect current research!

Psi-kat 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One last note: I'm not sure if it's legal to copy/paste stuff from the FDA's website, I reworded it slightly to make sure there were no plagiarism issues.

Psi-kat

My assumption that you thought my contributions were less valuable wasn't because of what you wrote, but because of your actions: you removed a large portion of what I added and gave no justification at all.

I'd like to work in a "cooperative and uncontentious manner" as you stated in my talk page, but your edits are pretty much the definition of contentious: "mice have no sweat glands", "aluminium chloride isn't a known neurotoxin", "oestrogen doesn't inhibit DNA repair in breast cells", "tumours can't turn non-cancerous (become benign)", these are all well known in the field. Accusing me of not reading the articles I cite isn't cooperative, it's just plain rude!

Psi-kat 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs Patent attorney
I agree there were too many external links to blogs in this article. However, some of them are very valuable from a legal point of view. Many patent attorneys use these source of information. What criterion could we use to re-insert some of them if possible? --Edcolins 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
Umm.. What are you talking about? I removed a pointless flag from her infobox. Flags are indeed sometimes used in infoboxes, but there are more bios without flags and a growing opposition to their inclusion in infoboxes. Check out WP:FLAGCRUFT. It's just an essay, true, but before you start assuming bad faith on me for removing a non-value added image, perhaps you should actually spend some time editing bio articles so you're up on the ebbs and flows of opinions on such things. As for any "mistakes" I've made in the past regarding the Hong Tran article, every single one of my actions in regards to the article has been within the bounds of Wiki-policy. Hong Tran remains a primary election candidate that is in the gray area of notability and, in my opinion, probably shouldn't have an article in Wikipedia. Her article is more NPOV now than the campaign site it was before I came and made my "mistakes". So, please, trundle off for another 2 months and next time you want to question my edits, try and educate yourself before doing so. Tata. --Bobblehead 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh good. I wasn't too subtle for you. I was worried. Tata. --Bobblehead 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't assumed good faith since your first post on my talk page... I'd like to see the beginning of good faith before I can answer how you can continue. --Bobblehead 16:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hong Tran for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hong Tran, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Hong Tran (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)