User talk:Gnome de plume/Archives/2012/October

Wow
Nice username choice...!! Phgao 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome and the nice comment. Gnome de plume 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * God, I keep loving it the more I see it. I need a user name like that ;) Phgao 16:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at your contribs, and it looks like you'll be a great Wikipedian. If you need help, drop me a line. Phgao 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been around long enough (anonymously editing) to figure out most of Wikipedia's quirks, but thanks for the offer of help - I'll probably need it sometime.  Gnome de plume 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh -- I was just stopping by to say the same thing.... Awesome choice.... &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gnome de plume 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
You're welcome ... and thanks for the barnstar. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, *slaps self with fish*
Ah, thanks, will do. I suppose I simply saw such a flagrant attack and reached for the CSD button! Thanks again.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 18:59, May 19, 2008 (UTC)
 * No harm done. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A to Z Mysteries


A tag has been placed on A to Z Mysteries requesting that you expaand the page. Please expand it or it will be deleted. For an example of what a book series page should look like, see The Hardy Boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patches1998 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The lack of logic behind this warning astounds me. If an article needs to be expanded, that is a reason not to delete it, don't you think?  Gnome de plume (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for helping with the Mary Richardson page. I was surprised to see that it was still a stub, so I went to town on it. It's the first page I've expanded so much and it's nice to see you taking interest! Danielleb32 (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a nicely written article. You've done a great job with it.  I just made a few minor changes.  Gnome de plume (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was quick! Thank you very much.   Gnome de plume (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: USF1 (human gene)
Hello Gnome de plume, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of USF1 (human gene) - a page you tagged - because: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Such a great name.
Thank you for the smile. :) - Sinneed  21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This. From one humorous name to another. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I love your username too! Gnome de plume (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Save The Rabbits Campaign
Thanks for backing my 'prod' for "Rabbit-eating flying demon". What worries me is that it was actually wikified and then moved to a more gramatically correct title by a well-meaning but gullible editor! Hopefully it will soon be gone but it beggars belief that such a blatant hoax should remain here even for a day. Good to see somebody else is on the ball. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Next New Networks
A tag has been placed on Next New Networks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 19:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

re 'Scarlet Johansen' at Area code 808‎
Hello, 'Gnome' We seem to be in agreement that this editor is not here to help improve Wikipedia. I tagged their edit to Area code 808‎ (which you deleted), but then I investigated, reverted 2 more of their edits and was beaten to a third by another editor. I have also posted on AN/I "Edits by Scarlet Johansen". ps. That is a nice 'nom de plume' you have there! --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 12:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we agree. Even if the content was correct, I think it is not relevant anyway.  Gnome de plume (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Best name ever...
I just wanted to let you know that. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 15:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pfft. My name is cooler. Half  Shadow  01:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
for reverting the vandalism to my userpage and the other pages. He's been a total nuisance on the several of my wikis, and I appreciate all help I can get when I'm not around to do so. Thanks again! Crimsonraptor (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposed trolling
Seeing as you have failed to respond on my talk, in which I stated NOT to post on there unless absolutely neccessary, please explain to me how I have broken any rules? Is contributing to the Wikipedia community a crime now? - Jake Talley (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your cluelessness is just an act. Gnome de plume (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pesticide
Hi Gnome, I have noticed you removed a paragraph from the Pesticide article. I agree that the wikipedia formulation made a statement that was not present in the original paper and it quoted a false time period. Nevertheless, in my reading the sentence "women in the first eight weeks of pregnancy who live near farm fields sprayed with the organochlorine pesticides dicofol and endosulfan are several times more likely to give birth to children with autism" does not state causality, nor does the cited publication claim to have proven such a connection. What do you think of a formulation like "pregnant women who live near farm fields sprayed with the organochlorine pesticides dicofol and endosulfan in the eight weeks following embryonic cranial neural tube closure may be more likely to give birth to children with autism"?

Quotation from the source : ''Statistical approaches (Aickin and Gensler 1996; Nichols and Hayasaka 2003) and visual inspection concurred that the association between organochlorine pesticide applications immediately before and during the period of CNS embryogenesis and ASD risk merited further investigation. This association was strongest for residences closest to pesticide applications and was attenuated with increasing distance. A posteriori analysis indicated that the association was strongest, in these data, among those residing near the highest nonzero quartile of pesticide applied during the 8 weeks immediately following cranial neural tube closure.''

Kmiki87 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that your wording is better. However, I'm concerned that including this at all gives too much weight to a single study.  To make a claim about the health effects of pesticides, the policy that should give us guidance is Identifying reliable sources (medicine).  In this case, a single primary source is insufficient to meet this criteria.  If there are reliable secondary sources (such as review articles published in a scientific journal) that support the connection between pesticides and autism, then I think we could add content based on that.  In the absence of that being available, I think it is best to wait for researchers to follow up on this study before including it in Wikipedia.  Gnome de plume (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your vandalism "warning"
I don't appreciate the attitude that you posted your "warning" to my talk page. I really wasn't vandalizing. I was, instead, trying to make a point that in addition to the obvious vandalism, we also have to be careful to watch for reliable sources, and sources that appear to be reliable but actually are sarcasm. So I am clearly not a true "asshole vandal", as you assumed. WTF? (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a distinction between what you did and "asshole vandalism". "Asshole vandalism" is readily caught and removed. Your kind of vandalism is damaging to Wikipedia to a greater degree.  Are there other articles in which you have introduced hoax material?  Gnome de plume (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not when I'm trying to make a point and illustrate an example to other editors. From that perspective, I'm trying to help the project. WTF? (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there other articles in which you have introduced hoax material? Gnome de plume (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You really didn't need to bring this up at WP:ANI. Though I do realize that what I did went against WP:POINT, and I should not have done it. I just wanted to find out how long that information that was added would take to get reverted, that's all. So I apologize about that. To answer your question, I think if you review my edit history, you'll find that the vast majority of information that I've added to wikipedia is valid and sourced appropriately. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe ANI wasn't the best choice of location (I really don't know), but I sincerely believe that because you have been evasive about whether you have added hoax content to other articles this requires discussion with a larger group of Wikipedia editors. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be evasive. I thought that by providing a link to my edit history, it would show that I have nothing to hide. So I don't understand how that's being "evasive"? For a direct answer, no I have not intentionally added any other hoax material to wikipedia articles. This incident was a one-article incident. WTF? (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warburgia ugandensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antifungal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing vandalism gets me accused of vandalism - great job
This summer I discovered that Lurlene McDaniel's page had been edited so that EVERY SINGLE title on the page had been made into rather crass double entendres. Many consisting of profanity, racially offensive, and sexual content. As McDaniel writes primarily for a young audience, I removed the offensive materials. None of the original titles existed in list format on the page and I hoped someone would come along and add real content back.

Imagine my surprise when I got a nasty email, that I could not respond to, accusing me of vandalism for removing the libelous content. Go ahead and check our previous content for that page, wikipedia. I assure you that Lurlene didn't write about crack whores.
 * I'm sorry. I mistakenly responded to the wrong user.  Thanks for removing the vandalism from the article.  Gnome de plume (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)