User talk:GeeJo/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 22:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Song of Susannah
Is the image from the paperback version of the book, or from a country other than the US, because it's not the same as my hardcover cover. It should be noted what edition that image is from. Lachatdelarue (talk) 7 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

Oxandrolone
Hi there! I read your comments regarding the page Oxandrolone and have deleted it as such. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions! Happy wiki-ing! --HappyCamper 02:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Cvg stub category updates
Hi! Thanks for updating cvg stub categories for Caesar IV and Caesar II! I notice from your contributions that you are interested in computer and video games. I invite you to check out and sign on as a participant in WikiProject Computer and video games. -- Sitearm | Talk 16:39, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Categorisation errors
If you're referring to the condition where an article has a category listed but doesn't appear on the category page, it can be fixed by applying a null edit (i.e. saving the page without making any changes), since this will cause the category tags to be refreshed. -- Kirill Lokshin 23:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, saved me a tonne of effort in trying to fix the battle-stubs :) GeeJo (t) (c) 00:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

tips
Hello. Some of your recent edits prompt these tips:


 * Start an article with a complete sentence, not a dictionary-style definition, and highlight the title word or title phrase at its first appearance, like this.


 * Don't capitalize an initial letter merely because it's in a section heading; thus "See also", and "External links", with lower-case "a" and "l". See Manual of Style.

Michael Hardy 01:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Corrected misconception on User page. Simply because I edit one part of an article (in this case classifying stub types) does not obligate me to clean up the entire thing. Thats the joy of a wiki - each person can bring something different to an article. :) GeeJo (t) (c) 02:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Brain Teasers:
Hi, just sending out a friendly notice stating that I have now got brain teasers on my user page. Will post new questions one day after the older ones have been answered. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Article: 31%
You marked 31% for speedy deletion, giving the reason: "Redundant." With which current or deleted article is it redundant? -- Super Aardvark 21:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Pint Glass image
Did you still want a picture of a pint glass? I own several and could take one... reply to my talk page if so.

Word Association
Hello, GeeJo. I guess from your edit that going over the "unofficial limit" is a Bad Thing. However, as I mentioned in my comment, I wasn't sure about that at the time, so I would have appreciated a note (e.g. on my talk page) letting me know. Oh, well. Live & learn. Peter T.S. 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Mr. Jones, thank you for providing the illustration for Flutamide (and for completing the table). I had been wishing I had some way to illustrate the article, but I did not expect anyone else would create the image so quickly. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Stanozolol
Hello GeeJo, I see you have edited my entry to the stanozolol page. I disagree with your removal of my information. Stanozolol is a generic name for a drug that is commonly called "Winstrol" or "winstrol Depot" which is manufactured by dozens of companies around the world. You have cited "advertising" as your reason for the edit, however you are incorrect. I am an experienced body-builder with a great deal of first-hand experience regarding many anabolic steroids. I am trying to provide people with more information about a drug, including common prtesentations, and dosages It is essential information. Please do not remove this again, insead, write back to me on my talk page Regards, Cavell

Hello GeeJo, I have made changes to the stanozolol article since your message to me. My knowledge does not come exclusivley from first-hand experience, and your criticisms of the editing were hopefully addressed. I have used many other sources as well. I removed anything which I thought could be construed as having a "significant "advertising" quality" to it. I also changed the confusion about the dosages - ie; they do not differentate by 5mg increments. Please write back if you have any other concerns about the revised article, Regards, Cavell 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell

Lesbianism and Spectroscopy
I know it's only a tentative link, but it's a link nonetheless. The spectrum (or rainbow) is a symbol of international lesbian and gay pride. When I saw what spectroscopy actually referred to (I had to look) that's the first thing that came into my head, and that's what the name of the game is. -- Francs2000 13:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind advice. I actually had come from Comixpedia-- thier help page lead me to Wikipedia without any real explination as to how to create a page on Comixpedia, which honestly kind of confused me. (I was lead to believe that the two somehow shared each other's articles- which I simply found hard to believe.) I eventually figured it out and deleted everything accordingly.

thanks
Thanks for the kind advice. I actually had come from Comixpedia-- thier help page lead me to Wikipedia without any real explination as to how to create a page on Comixpedia, which honestly kind of confused me. (I was lead to believe that the two somehow shared each other's articles- which I simply found hard to believe.) I eventually figured it out and deleted everything accordingly. Crow winters 09:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

flagging copyvio on "non-judgment" article
Hello, and actually thank you for the flagging of my article on non-judgment. At first I did not get why my brief quote from a multi-page posting could be a copyvio, but You were right. I had quoted from what on second view turns out to be a copyvio in itself. Now I have located the source and correctly attributed it (I hope). Please let me know if the revised version appears OK. As a non-native English speaker (German), I always appreciate cautious editing.

Kind Regards, and a happy new year to you.

Bernd in Japan (where the new year starts 9h before UTC and the 2005 leap second gets added on 2006-01-01 at 09:59:60)

RE: Martin Moser.
Hello,

Thank you for the sorting of the Moser article(s); it is greatly appreciated.

Regarding your remarks about the content, I just thought you should know that I did not create the article. I was checking about four dozen articles for typographical errors when I stumbled unto it. I have no idea about the accuracy of the article, and wonder why there are three variants of the same article on Wikipedia (no redirections are present.)

I am new around here, so I have no idea how the "good faith" rules work. That said, I hope I am not criminally implicated for updating the article.

Cheers, Folajimi(talk)


 * Thanks for the timely reply; it is greatly appreciated.
 * Could you please tell me how your signature is done? Are there any shortcuts (like the four tildes) for creating such an excellent signature? I have raw signatures enabled, but still no luck. Folajimi 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)(talk)

Aminoglutethimide
Aminogluthetimide seems to be an alternate spelling, and that's how it's listed by the WHO, so I've reverted your change on the ATC codes and made a redirect (since Aminoglutethimide seems to be way more common based on a google search, the main article should be there.) Thanks Matt 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Proxy war
Are you sure that a verify tag is the most productive way to approach this? Since this rather disorganized article basically lists that are conflicts described in detail in their own article, it would seem that verification in those pages would be sufficient. (The only one that I don't know is justified off the top of my head is the Iran-Iraq War/Lebanese Civil War connnection and I can't find supporting info on those articles either.) Thanks, BanyanTree 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah, in this case it was simply my mis-remembering the correct name for the tag I was after - unreferenced was more along the lines of what I intended to use, and I've updated the page in question. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

bitmap images
Thanks very much for taking the time to answer me. I'm just setting out on the journey of becoming a web designer. Some of the questions in my assignments are covered in the text books,but for the life of me I couldn't find a definitive answer on this one. Once again thanks a lot

jesus proof
Thank you for your response, which was unnervingly fast. The articles provided were fascinating, and help to show how little is actually known about that particular period in time.

Kind regards, Gallaghp.

thanks for your help
I wrote the question abvout Israel. I am new here and need to learn a little more about navigation.

This was for a friend of mine who is a Jew and wants to live there.

I have been there several times.....

Thanks, Lisa

Radioisotope thermoelectric generator
Why wouldn't you put the word power there? I mean the sentence doesn't sound/end right, e-mail me your response to kimyou@gmail.com please, thankyou.

lol, okay, well it just sounds weird to me, but if it's okay with you, let i be, haha.

Nandrolone
I just revisited the article on Nandrolone, and I'm impressed how it changed since I saw it last half a year ago. It seems that you performed the bulk of the changes - good job! Common Man 07:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I went through a period of trying to put in accurate information on various anabolic steroids onto Wikipedia a while ago. In the end, the difficulty of finding reliable information online, or complete information offline, as well as the need to constantly monitor for the insertion of adverts onto the pages meant I just gave up and disowned the lot. Nice to see that at least Nandrolone is still fairly intact. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear this. I think I know the feeling. This reminds me of my experience with Center for Consumer Freedom, where I resigned due to the fierce attacks of industry lobbyists (best documented in the talk sections Hatchet job? and Restructuring). However, I hadn't invested as much work into the article as you. Common Man 15:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your recent archival of the miscellaneous reference desk :-) --HappyCamper 02:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mannitol image
There's one too many hydroxyl groups on the structure you uploaded. I don't have the software to draw it, so if you're still around, can you see about fixing it?

@SS
oh come on!
 * I need that has a reference:P
 * &gt;x&lt;ino 02:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm...come again? GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  12:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Come back again in Africa!?
 * I said, i need that quote,

"Figuratively buffoon - a fool, idiot, clown. Some of this usage derives from the alleged stupidity of the donkey, and some of it from "asshole". Referred from User Profile User:Xino "
 * If you look at my Userpage, there is a link redirecting fools like you, into tricking that you got a new message, so with that reference it can be telling the tricked person, what kind of an idiot they are...."@ss"

you get what i am saying!?
 * &gt;x&lt;ino 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 Alright then...you leave me no choice but to redirect you to my @ss...and tell the rest that i am a reference to it:P
 * &gt;x&lt;ino 11:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Divje Babe
You are conflating "references" and "further reading". Uncle G 11:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

hey
thanks for changin the wording on the islamic inquilab mahaz article :) I guess i have a tendancy to describe stuff like that as terrorism without really thinking about it. i noticed ure at warwick uni - i applied there and im doing my a levels at the sec, are u liking it at the moment? What's it like, what are the people like, etc? :) XYaAsehShalomX 20:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Divje Babe wiki page
How does one add a jpeg or a gif into a wikipedia article? Thanks for your time if you can explain it? Candace Greenwych.ca

mediaeval kings of England
Thanks for your prompt response. Richard brooksby

My Images about to be deleted?

 * Dear Geelo. I've spent hours reading this and that about copyright licences. Still haven't a clue what to do. It's all Greek to me.


 * My image pages have no box for me to type in.


 * So what do I type and HOW and where do I type it?


 * All I want for my images is to say they are copyrighted, and need permission to be copied for any commercial purpose. They can be used w/o permission for non-commercial purposes, such as teaching a class or writing a paper in schools.


 * So, step by step what do I do on my image page????????? Please don't keep it a secret or make me decipher 2 million webpages of instructions I cannot understand. Pleeeze? I'm 70, disabled, and just haven't the strength for the months it would take me to figure it out.


 * Greenwych 08:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My images are about to be deleted?
Hi -- We finally figured it out -- save your strength for figuring out how to get some sleep.

But when you get time, at your convenience I may want to change my licence.

The way the language goes, I can't be sure if I'm reading the one I want.

I'm looking for one that will allow all educational uses, but no private profit uses -- e.g., making money specifically by selling my art work on a book cover, or as a product logo etc. For that permission is required at the least.

But I have no clue what licence category will give me that.

Bob Fink

"Cory" as in Chilean or Polish Cory
You asked: for those without the book in question, could you give some idea of the context?

This is a text about democracy: "Democratization in the Late 20th C," and the third wave of democracy began in 1974 with the coup in Portugal.

Huntington's use of this term: "There is no Chilean Cory." "Lech Walesa was a Polish Cory."

Hope this helps. Janet

Explosives infobox
I appreciate what you've been doing to do these; I was thinking of one, and playing around a bit, but hadn't gotten anywhere serious.

My comments so far would be that I think there are some important things missing... CJ detonation pressure, Crystal or cast maximum density versus typical use density (and specifying what density the Vdet is measured at...) come to mind first.

Anyways, it's definitely a good start. Thanks for that work! Georgewilliamherbert 05:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for correcting me! David Sneek 17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

AN IDEA FOR A NEW SECTION
HELLO MR.GEEJO I HAVE AN IDEA FOR A NEW SECTION ON THE REFRENCE DESK FOR ECNOMICS E-MAIL ME BACK TO LET KNOW WHAT YOU THINK OF MY IDEA.
 * Aloha! I just got your message, and I figured since you didnt actually give me your email address, I'll answer both here and on your IP talk page. I'm glad you're taking an interest in the underpinnings of the Wikipedia site. There's been a wide debate on whether or not to implement one or more new sections, though for now the consensus seems to be against it. If you wish to take part in the talks, see Wikipedia talk:Reference Desk.Happy editing GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  08:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

problem with the prison article
user geejo there is a problem with the prison most of the article is gone except for the see also section i hope you or someone else can fix it i think this is a serious problem and don`t know how to fix it i hope you do and if you don`t please gave this information to another user who knows how. PLEASE.
 * Looks like Swatjester got there first. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  08:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Secret-swing.jpg
Thanks for tagging the image. I'm not too familiar with these tags. - Mgm|(talk) 13:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Word association
Please could you only add one word at a time to all of the games, including the table-based games. This keeps it fun for everyone else and allows for more interesting associations. I've removed all but one of the words (the one listed first in the diff) where you've added more than one in your last edit. Thanks, Thryduulf 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're a little quick, GeeJo.
GeeJo, I do think your contributions to HHV_LAT are welcome, but your comments are annoying. The page needs verbage more than cleanup, so if you have any content to add, such useful help would be welcome. Perhaps the article should be marked as a 'stub'. Of course I will keep contributing while my time allows, although you have been discouraging. ManVhv 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * pasted from original post at User talk:ManVhv by User:ManVhv I originally added the cleanup tag as I believed that having over half the article text in headings made the article untidy to the point of embarrassment. The text is too jargon-dense for me to parse through with limited knowledge of the field, so I can't remove any of the headings without risking removing important content, and apparantly adding a cleanup tag isn't an acceptable solution to you either, so I did what I could to improve style: removing the table of contents and gaving a message in the comments about what I believed was the problem. The intent was not to be confrontational, but merely to suggest a way to improve the article. If presented with the same situation in another article, I'd do exactly the same and don't feel I was at all "quick" in my comment &mdash; which are only readable by editors. Instead, I wonder what you want me to do about my "annoying" comments. Would you prefer if I simply added changes without saying what I did, or why I did it? GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding the cleanup tag, particularly without comment, was snarky. Removing the TOC was helpful.  Your comment about why you didn't like the style ("Too many headers") was communicative.  The cleanup tag was added without editorial comment and somehow escaped the watched-pages mechanism.  At least "Too many headers" initiates dialog.


 * I agree with WP:OWN, don't get preachy. If you know anybody who would like to add four times as many facts to the page and also improve the verbage throughout, please point them to the topic, they are desired greatly.  You know what it really needs?  Artwork.  Are you good at that?  I'm not.  I appreciate that you aren't going to contribute to the content, although as a second-year chemistry student, I doubt it would be hard for you to do so.  That is part of the reason that a "cleanup" tag is inappropriate.  These tags encourage people to make edits when that probably shouldn't be encouraged.  Already, any person who is at the level of the article will see that it needs more verbage, and hoepfully they will pitch in and improve it.  So my contention is that adding the cleanup tag was a helpful idea that was probably not helpful.


 * As for the Manual of Style, the Wikipedia is growing and it seems like I should try to get together an overall solution for technical articles. Consider that my contention is that technical articles benefit from a variation in style.  The intent of my contributions on this article (as opposed to other contributions) is to write a technical article that is useful to technicians and students in the field.  If you'd like, we could work together on my idea for how to effect this evolution.


 * ManVhv 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(GeeJo replied on my talk page at this time. He seems to like putting his comments away from his own reputation.)
 * Actually, if you read the top of the page, I've stated that I answer queries on teh talk page of the questioner unless specifically told to do otherwise &mdash; it saves the person from having to add my talk page to their watchlist, me having to archive this so often, and anyone else coming along from having to read random conversations. You seem to be implying that I only replied on your talk page mid-way through the conversation to avoid culpability, when in fact that's where I've been talking all along. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you became persistently bothersome, instead of occassionally bothersome. Why are you rhetorically questioning my statements of intent, you argumentative young person, you?  Why did you bring up how unoffended you are by the subject matter of the page?  Why don't you make material contributions?  And now you've totally vandalized the article in your attempt to improve it.  I can't believe you're an undergrad in science and believe you just did a good thing.  You really need to go bother others.  ManVhv 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing you, so it goes on your discussion page.
 * You added 3 factual errors to the page, made the references section full of illegible marks... Because of the 'style' guidelines.
 * The wikipedia has a built-in limit called "too technical." I guess there shouldn't be articles in the usual technical standard.  The references go at the end.  You realize there are over 100 references that need to be in an article about LAT?  Until you came along, I had a reference for every fact in the article.  How many wikipedia articles adhere to that standard of quality?  Way to piss in the punch.  ManVhv 03:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from ManVhv discussion page:
 * The question wasn't rhetorical and neither is the following. What exactly do you want me to do about this? The article in the state I found it was ugly. Having previously admitted I have no expertise in the area I added a cleanup tag to let someone more knowledgable about the subject have a bash at it - you removed it. After your comment I asked how you'd like to proceed and you stated "I appreciate that you aren't going to contribute to the content, although as a second-year chemistry student, I doubt it would be hard for you to do so.", so I had a go - and you reverted it. I'm honestly scratching my head wondering what exactly you think Wikipedia is. You refuse to have any modifications made to the article you started at all, and rather than discuss it, you list it for deletion. I'm not trying to goad you, or cast aspersions on your work, I'm simply trying to understand what you're thinking in doing this over some stylistic changes. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What I want you to do about this: stop trying to edit for style, but I really hope valuable contributors will come along. I've been dying for somebody to come help me add material to the topic, because that page is about 1/32nd the length it needs to become.  When you got to the page, it was very organized, and therefore easy to add to.  Even a style change that introduces no errors and does not devolve the organization is welcome, but I can't see how to do that well before the page is complete.


 * You make the mistake of assuming that my new account is that of a new contributor. I've made thousands of edits.  This is the first "journal-quality" technical article I've tried to produce.  Perhaps I am going about it wrong, but I haven't received any helpful advice.  The subject matter -- the mRNA transcript of a gene from a specific family of viruses -- is inherently technical.  Already, this presents a problem on WP because there is such a thing as the accepted "too-technical" tag.  Nevertheless, I am hoping to compile all of the published information on the topic.  I estimate this will require about 496 more hours of work actually reading articles and then writing words.  Ultimately, the entire viral genome would take about 40,000 hours.  Clearly, I want help, here.  There is no reason to add a less-technical article about LAT, there are already several articles that cover it with a blurb.  If the LAT article can't be journal-quality, then it should just get deleted.


 * You asked me what I think wikipedia 'is'. I think it is a bunch of busy people trying to contribute, below some busybodies trying to pump themselves up, below some god-like people who have created a new world.


 * As for what you were trying to get at: so many of the articles I've written have benefitted from massive edits, but even your small edits yesterday were low-quality, aside from getting in the way of making additions. I welcome the true nature of the wikipedia, but your role is not always part of wikipedia goodness that I have seen over the years.


 * Adding a clean-up tag in administrator stealth mode is an example of what I see as your busybody misbehavior. I am taking you to task because I want to see you move up or down from the level you are at.  A valuable principle is that any administrative behavior you feel you must perform privately is likely wrong in some way, GeeJo.


 * I don't care who makes the edits to topics I am trying to pull together, what their writing style is, or anything like that. I hope people add referenced facts as a higher priority than reorganizing.  I will revert any factual mistakes.  If I don't have time to add a reference for every fact, I'll have to delete the statements of fact.  The goal is one reference per assertion, which may be approximately one reference per sentence or few sentences.  I do want the references adjacent to the facts they support, and not as end-notes.  I also want to adhere to the WP1.0 guideance of using headers to organize content.  The way the headers create the TOC should create a good outline of the topic.


 * Also, I have come to disagree with you over the TOC. Since any user can hide the TOC, and this hide is persisted (apparently persisted, to me), there is a wonderful solution for both sides of the TOC debate.
 * ManVhv 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

While I consider the matter closed (I deliberately keep to less frequented areas to avoid conflict, and this is proving to be a doozy), I would like to point out that I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an Admin. I'm flattered that you'd assume I was one though. GeeJo (t) (c) &bull;  17:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was careful not to assert that you are an Admin although you are performing administrative tasks. As for the means by which you made an edit that escaped the history, I have to assume you used some kind of super-user access.  How did you accomplish that edit in the first place? ManVhv 19:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Escaped the history? Looks like its there to me. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  19:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. It escaped my watch list.  Is it your claim that you used the everyday, commonplace "edit this page" tab which anybody would ordinarily use? ManVhv 20:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, I did. Note though that it probably wouldnt show up in your watchlist, since I made another edit immediately afterwards removing someone's e-mail from the article (Since Wikipedia is mirrored by an awfully large number of sites, the poor guys address is probably all over the place by now!), and only the latest edit in a given article shows on a watchlist. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  06:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for the explanation. I still don't understand why none of the changes showed up on my watchlist, but I see now that there could be many reasons.
 * After re-reading some of our exchange, I see you originally misunderstood what I meant about "I appreciate you are not going to edit this...". I take it you thought I meant, "Thank you for not touching this."  I believe that is the more usual sense of the word "appreciate," actually.  What I actually meant was, "I comprehend that you will not be editting the content..." as in "This is the assumption I am making based on what I have seen so far."  The truth is, I was trying to goad you into making contentful edits.
 * My main dismay at your contentful edit was your "reorganization" and suggestion that a knowledgable person could "make sense" of where the articles should go. That seemed asinine and needlessly pejorative.  In fact, the articles you moved were already organized properly.  I wonder if you could appreciate the schema?  Your major edit really didn't do much to the content other than change the grammar such that it was wrong, and disorganize things that were previously organized.
 * I agree with you that the references look nicer as the short form, but inlined. You can see that long before you came along, I had adopted that standard in related articles.  If you'd asked for that with your original cleanup tag, you would have gotten it without fuss.
 * Your point about the "poor guy's" email address is: passively-aggressively pejorative, and, again, asinine. The "poor guy" has already published his email address on the web for years.  Look the paper up on PubMED if you are able to use the Internet.  His email address has been on thousands of web sites for several years.  He already has a solution to the SPAM problem, I take it.
 * GeeJo, I have been here a long time. I would hate it if I had been a new user you had come across.  ManVhv 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine that getting his e-mail placed on the 12th globally most-visited site on the net and mirrored across many, many others would have a much larger impact on his inbox than adding a single contact number on a single out-of-the-way technical site. I do still stand my belief that the article would be more accessible to readers if presented as prose rather than as a whole host of single-sentence sections, though. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah, that looks far more aggressive in text than I'd intended it to. Ah well. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's coming out too aggressive, think about what would have transpired if I was a mousish contributor or a new user...
 * Since when is PubMed an "out-of-the-way" site? That is a really bizarre statement.  If you search the web for kwang AT niaid.nih.gov, you can see that he has published his email address on the web since 2001.
 * I agree with you that single-sentence secions would be bad. There are three of those sections at present, and one of them is "miscellaneous" which is clearly intended for later cleanup and needs an expert just like the rest of the page.  There are really two ways one might imagine proceeding.  One might remove the headers and combine the sections, but one would still want to retain at least paragraph boundaries, due to the different topics at hand.  Another person might leave the headers in place and add sentences in the sections which already exist.  The amount of prose per section could certainly be increased.  That doesn't seem like as valid a priority as adding sections on topics that are overlooked, but we all have our own priorities.
 * Overall, I get the impression you haven't read a lot of Biology science. You think PubMed is obscure and you don't like an outline-based layout.  You made edits that indicated a lack of understanding with regard to the organization that existed.
 * Fundamentally, your eagerness to add cleanup and make misguided stylistic and grammar changes is destructive compared to the alternatives. Whoever added expert found just the right tag; the article needs content added, not editing.  Editing is for when it's complete enough.  Does that make sense to you?  Surely some editing has to happen to young articles, but not at the expense of them being maintainable by the only people who add content to them. ManVhv 21:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Histone H3
Apparently you didn't proofread the 'contribution' you made to Histone H3 today. Good thing you are on your rampage! ManVhv 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you going to clean that up? ManVhv 03:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checked, and you've fixed the error for me. Thanks! GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

can u show me how to make user page pls?
137.205.17.174 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Pasted from User talk:137.205.17.174. Aloha! Since I'm not sure you'll read this here, I'll post the same as a response on my own user page as well. First off, Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you like it and stick around to help out around the place. As to your question, you can create a User page by clicking the red link in the top left labelled "user page" and writing a new entry. However, if you want the page to be permanent, you'll have to register for an account first. Once you've done that, have a look around a few users' own pages and pick the bits you like, then put them together however you want. You may be interested in having a look through the list of userboxes for some quick content. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask on my talk page, or at the Help desk. Happy editing! GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  09:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: IMAGES FROM USER : CAVELL
Hello, I noticed you have tagged two images I have uploaded and tagged them for deletion. I cannot make sense, nor do I know how to rectify this situation. These are pictures I found on the web and added for reference purposes. I don't really get the point of your message. If it makes you feel good to delete pictures that provide valuable reference, which were uploaded months ago, then you go and do that. Or, you could get more of a life and leave well alone. Since it looks like you have a lot of free time on your hands, either delete them already or make the files usable and not "tagged for deletion". Cavell 01:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Cavell


 * GeeJo made comments on your user talk page about these images. He explained that you didn't provide copyright information for these images.  They probably do need to be deleted, because you can't establish their copyright.  You can see that I don't agree with GeeJo at all times, but I think he has a good point here. ManVhv 06:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics
Hi,

We started a proposal Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 00:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love your help.
I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oil (disambiguation) → Oil
Hello. In the interest of building a consensus, I would appreciate any input you (as a recent contributor to these pages) would have regarding the request to move Oil (disambiguation) back to Oil. Thank you, --Kralizec! (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)