User talk:Figma

Tell me what's on your mind...

Yes well...
I was more having a cheeky poke at Brian and David. &gt;.&gt;  ..Monotonehell 21:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Uterine atony
I have done some work on gravita/para, wonder if we can incorporate your clarification into the parity article? -- G e n e b 1 9 5 5  Talk / CVU 04:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bone
Go ahead, I'm not enough of a specialist to add a whole lot more to the article. Glad you think the edits look good!

WLU 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One point to add - I believe bone is an organ, mostly because my human anatomy books says "Bones are organs. (Recall that an organ contain serveral different tissues.)" (emphasis in original) Do you have a different source for saying they are not? Bones do have nerves, blood vessels, marrow, etc, making them organ according to the definition I have. Also, I'm in favour of bulleted lists rather than numbered, esthetically my personal opinion is that they look better, but also I find that they seem to imply an order, while the functions are not ordered in any fashion I know of. Mostly my opinion, but the organ thing does concern me. The rest of the edits look good to me.

WLU

So does the article refer to bones the organs (with the marrow and nerves and periosteum and whatnot), or just the mineral-laden sections, just the compact and spongy? That'd be a good distinction to make. I'd say bones the organ, but all the sub-tissues would link to their own articles rather than discussing them in detail on the actual page. I'm glad you agree about the lists, I think bulleting is enough. WLU

That seems fine. As I think about the functions of bone, blood production is a function of 'bone the organ', so I think that's a good solution. I'd still think that most of the info on bone right now should stay there, rather than move to osseous tissue. I'll try to do a bit more research (beyond the wiki page) to make sure that osseous tissue refers to just spongy/compact bone.

WLU 13:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the talk page then start thinking about changes. WLU 18:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to subst: templates!
Hi,

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks! :)

Hbackman 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the comments on my translation of Finrod from the French! I'll take a look next chance I get. Hbackman 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Tags
Please try to avoid un-necessary use of of db tags. You tagged the talk page of an article for deletion when removing the test would have sufficed. Did you also mean to have the article deleted? If not it would have made no sense to try and delete a talk page. Catagory CSD is always backed up and overloaded and we owe it to the poor admins trying to clear it out to try and keep the nominations straightforward and within policy. Thanks --Spartaz 06:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks
Yes that helps, thanks. The google hits all seemed to be either about anatomy, or derivative of Wikipedia, so I wasn't sure if it was a hoax or not. Thanks. --BostonMA talk 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

phob
Fixed. `'mikkanarxi 22:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thank you, I read through a lot of the wikipedia style/guidelines stuff and it was very informative. I'm quickly finding myself addicted to this. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AeoniosHaplo (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC).



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

My talk page
Hi Figma,

I appreciate your attempts to mediate between myself and Mystar, and try to point us towards fruitful terrain. However, Mystar and myself are both grown-ups (acrimonious, childish grown-ups when it comes to each other) and other people getting involved tends to fuel things in my past experience (again, speaking of both of us - I'm not using this to cheap-shot him). Once more, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but reccommend against it for your own sake. That being said, it's Wikipedia and you're free to do was you like. Thanks,

WLU 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Appreciate the sentiment, enjoyed collaborating on bone. WLU

Hello from Handsome Pete
Thanks for the greeting and words of encouragement. I've loved reading the wiki, and now I want to help keep it top shape. I guess I should get around to reading the help files though.

Handsome Pete 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the tips!The Beach Boy 02:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Georgia (country)
Hi Figma. I'm sorry if my edit summary was a bit emotional, and many thanks for your help. Keep up the good work! --KoberTalk 19:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee
Hey Hlj - Why did you revert to an even earlier version of the article? Cutting out that information warrants an explanation, I think. Thanks, Figma 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, a slip-up during my daily reversion blizzard, I guess. Fixed it. Hal Jespersen 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Merci!
Re your message: You beat me to the reversion of your user page. =) There won't be a third time on your Talk page... at least not from that IP for awhile. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Figma, Thank you for your welcome. I've added some references to the article physician, as well as some relevant external links. I have 3 problems: (1) Are these additions enough to remove the 'references needed' tag at the article's top? This was added by an apparently experienced editor soon after I made my first attempt at editing, and I hesitate to remove it. (2) in the text, a couple of external references don't show up with the funny little superscript arrow that indicates a web site (though they are highlighted in blue and do lead to the website), and I'm not sure what I've done wrong. (3) the pretty picture at the top no longer shows up properly: this wasn't done by me but I notice there have been lots of minor edits.

I've also put this notice on my talk page. Pleas excuse me as a novice if my questions seem very simple. DavidB 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC) DavidB 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Figma,
Thanks for offering your help, I could use it. There seems to be dozens, if not more, mistakes on the circumcision article. People on the talk page even ask for corrections to be done. And they want the article to be neutral (that is at least state both sides of the argument). Example Circumcision is a surgical procedure (that statement is false but no one will let me fix it) Men are 50% more likely to get AIDS if theyre not circumcised. This is false. Different studies have shown the opposite. This is bias. Another quote from the article "If 20 million men were circumcised, AIDS could be reduced globally by 2 million." This statement is false and OBVIOUSLY persuasive. We just want to fix the article and give the scientific data, such as what circumcision is, and then a section on why its controversial. Instead, the first half is a mixture of rabid pro and anti-circ propaganda. And the End is just an argument for circumcision. How can we fix this? How come every time I try to fix it, someone deletes it, BLOCKS ME, and then PROTECTS THE ARTICLE. I am about to lose all interest in Wikipedia, like a lot of people, and I hope that doesnt happen. The Blend 11:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, thank your for your help. And I tried to contribute to the circumcision page when I lived with my ex but it was always just immediately deleted by JgJay or Onorem or JakeW. The "we" means on the circumcision talk pages, and some of these editors I have talked to on their talk pages, all want the same thing. There are like 2 or 3 radicals, that happen to be administrators, who are ruining the article and not letting anyone fix it. We want it to be Neutral and not have to say at the top "The neutrality is in dispute". Google Circumcision and Wikipedia's article is Number 2. Surgery is defined in medical texts and on Wikipedia as "the medical specialty that treats disease or injury by operative manual and instrumental treatment. When a healthy baby is born, What disease or injury is being "treated" with circumcision? None. This is elective surgery.  Even if you call it preventative, the word is still mutilation, not surgery. Mutilation is otherwise known as body modification.  That is why male circumcision is referred to as "male genital mutilation" and female circumcision is "female genital mutilation." Go to the UN human rights website.  If a surgeon cuts off your healthy ear in a hospital, that doesn't make it a surgery. It doesn't matter Where it's done or Who does it (surgeon), mutilation is mutilation.  Also, other studies have shown the exact opposite of what the article states on HIV AIDS and circumcision. But anytime someone wants to put that in, it gets deleted. Please help. What do I do? The Blend 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Help
Hello Figma, Nice to meet up with you again, Figma. I got your message on my talk page in response to my query about posting a new page about ActionBioscience.org. Your message was: Hi SciLit - I'm not sure your proposed article would fit the notability criteria; click here to check the guidelines out for yourself. Figma 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC). I have read the guidelines several times and I'm not clear about noteworthiness. I assumed that ActionBioscience is noteworthy because: it won the Scientific American award (the magazine is the top science magazine in the world), it's endorsed by the only national association for biology teachers in America (the National Association of Biology Teachers), it's a resource of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (the top organization of biologists in the country numbering over 200,000 scientists), and the authors include Nobel Laureates, Pullitzer Prize winners, and a host of other most eminent scientists. When I look at pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaadz and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TakingITGlobal, I don't understand how they can pass the test and ActionBioscience.org can't. Please help me out. How can make this page meet your criteria better? Do you want me to give references? Links to journals or other web sites that have cited or listed ActionBioscience.org? Does the following writeups and endorsements qualify ActionBioscience.org for noteworthiness: http://www.cogito.org/SitesTools/SitesDetail.aspx?ContentID=13207 (John Hopkins University), http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA381519.html?display=Sites+of+the+WeekNews&industry=Sites+of+the+Week&industryid=19283&verticalid=152 (School Library Journal, which chose us as site of the week), http://content.nsdl.org/wbr/Issue.php?issue=60 (National Science Digital Library newsletter), (Hawkill Science Newsletter), http://science.house.gov/resources/nsfstudents.htm (Democratic Caucus Science Committee web site), or http://www.americanscientist.org/template/SiteOfTheWeekTypeDetail/assetid/27962;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0 (American Scientists Online)? There are newspaper articles too, for example: http://www.brooklynrail.org/2006-06/poetry/poetry-ecology-and-the-reappropriation-of-lived-space (Brooklyn Rail), http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/12/27/news/opinion/editorial.txt (Corvallis Gazette Times), and http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=330815 (The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel). Scilit 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Please help, if you can. Thank you.

I NEED YOUR HELP
I tried to make real cited edits to circumcision and this is what I got. " Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jakew 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)" See, this is corruption. Help me, please. The Blend 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Aphrodite and Rhea Silvia

You accuse me of vandalism for correcting the name og Romulus and Remus mother to Rhea Silvia. The twins was descendants of Aeneas, and therefore his mother Aphrodite, but thir mother was Rhea Silvia according to the legend. Kingvald 12:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Trampton 05:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
The friendly welcome is appreciated. Best of regards to you in return. - Éiginnte 05:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Alpine Type-R article
Thanks for cleaning up the morons edit.

Clown666 10:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from speaking to dynamic IP ranges.
You talked to a dynamic IP recently. Be glad I'm not whoever made whatever idiotic changes to whatever that skeleton deal was. I understand you may not be able to tell right away what is or isn't a dynamic range, but if the individual has no real account/user page, it's probably a waste of time to try communicating. If you need more of me, my user thingamabob is Niarbeht, and no, I won't bother to link things properly, as I'm feeling a bit lazy right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.45.0 (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Horatio Gates
I'm not sure if you've got the right guy. No one using this IP address even knows how to make edits on Wikipedia, and even if they did I can't see that they would be vandalizing anything. Especially an article about General Gates. I would appreciate it if you didn't block me because I still enjoy making edits on discussion pages every now and again. 65.66.159.214 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Shark GAR notice
Shark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)