User talk:Ike9898/Archive 2

Image Tagging for Image:WAVES recruitment poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WAVES recruitment poster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Se7en Edit
Your Tag, here, can not happen until the article is confirmed by the GA team. It has since been removed until this happens. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. This article has achieved GA status; I evaluated it and promoted it. That's why I changed the tag you reverted! ike9898 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Like amiss save. No problem. :) I just saw the counter of GA articles go and I went to check and I still saw GA nominee. Cool that another film article made it to FA status. :) --[[Image:FBISeal.png|15px]] Shane (talk/contrib) 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen is the science collaboration for August 2006
Okay guys, now let's make this an FA!

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project
You voted for Textile, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Davodd 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Word search
Have a look at the word search article you started. It's fleshed out quite nicely. Fwend 08:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

SCOTM
NCurse work 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 06:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 07:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Philly meetup
Hi! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask my talk page. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 16:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Check this out Meetup/Philadelphia_2. --evrik (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia Meetup 3
FYI ... Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --evrik (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When do you think we should call the date and place and start looking for a specific location? --evrik (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Barnstar moved to user page. I apperciate it! ike9898 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Want to get involved in food science and technology stuff?
I have been working on food science and technology issues over the last month, including the Institute of Food Technologists, International Union of Food Science and Technology, and other food related stuff. Would you be interested in assisting? Chris 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now, I would like for you to review all articles on food science starting with the main article and make any necessary edits to them. I am under editorial review right now, and one of the things that I have noticed is I tend to do these things individually more than collaboratively. You can use the template that I have created to go through the different articles. Chris 19:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurs e work 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sex is now the COTF
Walkerma 06:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Driving away editors
I saw your message on Raul654's talk page. Another thing that is driving editors away is a purge on images that don't comply with Wikipedia's GNU policies. The purgers are showing little judgment at all--if it's not GNU, it's gone. They don't seem to understand the reality that the world is full of images that are INTENDED to be widely reproduced by fair use. Pictures of celebrities are a common case in point -- no celebrity is ever going to release all rights to a picture; instead, they provide publicity pictures that can be widely reproduced under fair use. The purge is just one more reason not to bother with Wikipedia, IMHO. Another is very stupid editors who like to argue with non-stupid ones.

(And BTW, I never met an offal expert before.)

(And further BTW, there's something wrong with the links in the green area of your user page. I click one subject and get another.) Lou Sander 04:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Science Desk "Odd Nausea" meta comments
(copied from the discussion page for Reference Desk) I removed the following metacomments today from the aforementioned ref desk page because they are talking about a responder rather than answering the original question:Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "::Hey Ten - If you don't have anything concrete to add, why write anything at all? ike9898 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Ten. Just say 'Go to a Doctor, it sounds serious'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.10.127.58 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I think that was a little bit unnecessary yourself ike. His reply was fine. X [' Mac Davis '] ( DESK | How's my driving? ) 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * I did this per the rule someone stated that comments about comments should be on this page or on the editor's talk page, not on the public side of the reference desk. If Ike, Hagermanbot and Mac Davis feel strongly that they are an answer to the original question, and if the consensus on this page agrees, then I apologize and they can certainly be moved back. Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Monell Chemical Senses Center
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I offer my apologies. as I was tired, I simply read, "institute" and decided with school, and then misspelled it. What I can not figure out is why I did not preview it, as I always preview my edits, especially in stub-sorting. Thanks for calling this to my attention, and I will try to eliminate my mistakes in the future. The article has been re-sorted to which is more appropriate. thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Causa 20:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is quite alright, think nothing of it. Well all can be grumpy at times, and I don't blame you for being a bit perturbed when I issued advice on stub sorting when I myself messed it up.--Vox Causa 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you disagree with the previous tag, would you agree to, or simply a general ? If you disagree, please explain.--Vox Causa 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so reasonable, I knew we could come to a decision. Just to allow for a broader sense of the article, I will add a double-stub, for neuroscience, then medicine.--Vox Causa 01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Double-numbering footnotes
Hi - I saw your comment at Talk:Jenna Jameson: Minor point on references about the reference numbers displaying incorrectly, and left a possible solution there. Did you get a chance to try it? (Please respond there, if you would.) Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move debate opinions needed
Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurs e work 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion from Memetic Engineering Article
The Memetic Engineering article has a Warning posted on it, "This does not cite it's references or sources". I added an example of a citable reference, to try to fix this problem. I cited an article (available online through the link) in a national magazine by an author who self-professes memetic engineering, which describes both the meme and the methodology of its engineering, and whose meme has a wiki article already. I go into detail about this on the Talk page.

I would appreciate it if you explain your deletion in more detail, on the discussion page or on my Talk page. For obvious reasons it would preferable if you revert the deletion yourself.

There may be some linguistic confusion about the term "memetic engineering"; it does not refer to a biochemical Genetic Engineering process, in this context. The simplest explanation to me is that as a biochemist you misconstrued the context. Please explain. Thanks, Peter H. St.John, M.S. 19:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I tried some cleanup
Ike, thank you for your reply. I tried to clean up Memetic Engineering and describe it at this item within the Discussion page in response to your secions 10 and 11 (the discussion on the Talk page seems to have gotten spread over 3 editable secions). I regret picking up on this so late: I'm new and still clumsy managing my watchlist; not to mention editting sub-subsections about distinctions between examples of citations and examples of examples, on the subject of self-referential terms such as "Engineered Meme", which is an engineered meme. As before, counter-sur-rebuttal is welcome at my Talk Peter H. St.John, M.S. 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurs e work 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Month
You supported Marvel Comics, which has been selected as the Comics WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Steve block Talk 19:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Philadelphia Meetup 3
Would love to, but 3 of the proposed days are work days for me, and the other day is Daytona 500 day, which I dont miss regardless of what happens.

Sorry, but thanks anyways :) Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 11:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gotten another message, already had made note that the day that is chosen is a workday for me, but thanks for letting me know Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 12:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheltenham High School Notable Alumni
Great job cleaning up the notable alumni section. I think you were very fair about it. Just wanted to leave some positive feeback, because I hate that people only get alerted when someone doesn't like what they did. Bjewiki 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons POTY identity confirmation
I confirm I am the same user as commons:User:ike9898 -ike9898 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? --evrik (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3
--Thanks for the reminder!

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurs e work 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge Kitchen rendering and Greaves (food) into Rendering (food processing)
I've made a proposal to merge the above-mentioned articles. Kitchen rendering and industrial rendering are basically the same processes, however, one article discusses it on a kitchen scale, the other on an industrial scale. Greaves are a byproduct of rendering – there does not seem to be enough content (or even potential content) to justify breaking it off into its own article. Discuss at Talk:Rendering (food processing). Peter G Werner 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

GA
Your requests at Minority Report (film) were addressed by me and User:Quadzilla99. See if it's enough for the approval, or anything else is needed. igordebraga ≠ 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Quadzilla99 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Advice
I'm looking for advice on how to solve a dispute with another administrator. This user seems to have made it him mission to constantly check my contributions page and delete every article that I try to write. I've been trying to update wikipedia with pages for various bands and musicians that have been left off his archive and have made a name for themselves, but this administrator seems to go to their pages, say "I've never heard of them!" and immediately delete the page, without taking into consideration that the bands I'm adding are very well regarded in their chosen genres (albeit these genres may be obscure). He hasn't done adequate research into the genres themselves to realize this since it is evidently not his chosen style of music, and so he is deleting all my pages for reasons of "non-notability". He locked one page because it had been recreated 9 times by different fans of the band; I feel that this itself proves that the band has enough of a following to warrant deserving to be a wikipedia page. I've tried reasoning with him but he isn't listening, I'm not sure how to pursue with this. Any advice would be much appreciated, since I'm new to wikipedia editing. JamesMarshall 22:26, 3 April 2007
 * If this admin is deleting pages without discussion, then he probably thinks that the article meets one of the Criteria for speedy deletion, specifically item #7 in [|this section]. However, this rule he is using specifically says that it only applies when there is no reasonable controversy.


 * If your dispute with this admin can't be resolved one-on-one (which is ideal), then you can try to take action detailed here or here. I recommend trying to resolve this at the lowest level possible.  Escalating disputes rarely does much good for either party.  Good luck. ike9898 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping!
Thanks for rving (reverting) vandalism to my userpage. Happy editing!-- Pre ston  H (Sandbox) •  (Sign Here!) 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Venture
Thanks for the re-review -- I had actually noticed that it hadn't been removed from the candidates list, but I didn't do anything about it. I believe everything is in fact sourced correctly, it's just that I used a style in which I placed sources at the end of a paragraph if they covered everything in the paragraph. (I've no idea if this is MoS-permissible; probably should check.) Anyway, I planned to move the refs around and ask the original reviewer to take another look, but I'm travelling in Europe and didn't have access to my sources. . . and then you came along and rereviewed it (and very kindly fixed the copyright tags). Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the user page update -- very thoughtful! Mike Christie (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Date
Either date is fine with me. Should we ask people to confirm? --evrik (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just screwed up the Philly page, but I think with good reason. This is ludicrous that someone would step in and name a "second place" date because -- why? -- Wikipedians can't be trusted to fill out a table correctly and proof their selection after hitting "Save"? --SpiralingMusic 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please help resolve the odd dispute that has arisen at the voting page. Please cast your run-off vote by May 27th.  Thank you! --SpiralingMusic 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review
Can you please issue a review for Chinese American Food Society. It is currently up for deletion and I would like your review on this to see if it worthy of a keep. I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you your article review of the Chinese American Food Society. It was saved from deletion earlier today. Chris 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in biology, chemistry, and medicine nominated for deletion
Hi Ike9898,

the articles unsolved problems in biology, unsolved problems in chemistry, and unsolved problems in medicine have again be nominated for deletion. Your comment would be appreciated on the discussion pages Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in chemistry, and Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medicine 2.

Thanks, Cacycle 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)