User talk:Nono64/Archive 2011

coincidence
Literally in the last few hours have been using Annie Cardell-Oliver's annotated copy of M.H. Ellis's book the 'Garden Path' - and the article pops up on my watch list - happy new year to you - cheers SatuSuro 09:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Obsessive editing
You have OCD-like editing behavior, at this point for polyphenols contributing little. Why don't you give the polyphenol page a break for a month, and we can both take a rest? --Zefr (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Cnidarian anatomy stubs
Category:Cnidarian anatomy stubs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion at Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/18. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Juice Plus ingredients
Template:Juice Plus ingredients has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Road designation Green
Template:Road designation Green has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WWF's "forests" vs your "forest"
These are not a single forest, they are a group of forests, not just geographically but also by type....which is why the WWF titles their names "forests" in the plural. WP:MOSFOLLOW applies - "follow the sources". Please revert your page-moves, they were incorrect.Skookum1 (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should long before have done the redirects yourself (or your staff in the project you are in) to avoid people to move the pages in the singular as it is the regular form for article titles. --Nono64 (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regular form? The regular form is that which is used by the source designating this term.  YOu are wildly off-base here; read the citations on the article, read the article, don't just blindly follow what you think is a "rule"....it's not.  It doens't help that "wiki lower-case-ism", as I call it, turned what are titles and names conferred by a particular organization into what seem like are generic terms (but are not).  WP:MOSFOLLOW is VERY CLEAR - "follow the sources".  The same is in WP:TITLE.  You have created a "new term", the idea that the Pacific temperate coastal rainforest ecoregion is ONE forest.  It is NOT (I know, I live there), it is many forestS.Skookum1 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry to have put you in such a bad mood. I will nevertheless try to apologise fot the mess. I hope your week-end won't be all messed up. Cheers. --Nono64 (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please defer to WP:MOSFOLLOW for ecoregion names. They were defined in 2001 and are still widely used. For example, the 2010 Atlas of Global Conservation uses them. They are also used in the scientific literature. See, for example, this recent paper on the Napo moists forests of the western Amazon. Changing their names on Wikipedia will create confusion and most likely result in the name changes gradually being reverted. Miguel.v (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Mention of Fischer-Speier esterification in "Aging of Wine"
I suggest removing the mention of Fischer-Speier esterification from the "Aging of Wine" article. As you say, it is a special type of esterification, not relevent here because: 1. It is a lab synthesis method. 2. It uses reflux (boiling and condensing). 3. It is catalyzed by strong acid, mostly absent from wine. Your implied analogy of carboxylic acid catalysis with strong acid catalysis is not really valid - the pH difference is too great. Drbillellis 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbillellis (talk • contribs)
 * Done. --Nono64 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Diferulic acid(s)
Nono64

Could you please revert you page move of diferulic acid back to diferulic acids. I think it is clear from the page that it is in fact a group of compounds with very different structures and properties, and therefore should be plural to be factually correct. You have also neglected to change any of the uses of "diferulic acids" in the text of the article to match the new title.

I would rather you do the page move, as you obviously know how. Terri G (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I cannot reverse simply. That's the way wikipedia works. For the reason of "history" conservation, you cannot copy and paste the content back to the "diferulic acids" page which is now a redirect. The way to reverse the thing is to ask an administrator to delete the "diferulic acids" redirect. You could alternatively blank it yourself and it will have the same effect as administrators will detect a void page and delete it. Then it will be possible to "move" the title of the article from singular back to plural.

For the "move", if you don't know how it works, it is probably because you don't have the "move" tab (which sits near the "history" tab on your wikipedia view). If you don't have it, you may ask an administrator for the right to have it. (for more, see User access levels (move right is given to "autoconfirmed" users) and Moving a page) Now consider that wikipedia article titles are generally written in the singular form. For the article "eye", the fact that we possess two of them doesn't mean we cannot tell something about one of them alone. For "polyphenol", which is a class of phytochemicals, the title is in the singular also although there are thousands of different structures known. The titles using plural are generally turned on a singular form as "list of ...s" or "glossary of ...s". For "diferulic acid", you can explain in the first lines of the intro that this is a class of molecules with more that one structure. Are my explanations clear enough? --Nono64 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe either of you could have moved this back (using the move tab) since the redirect had no other history. Naming conventions (plurals) makes it clear that in these types of cases the plural is acceptable. (Articles on groups or classes of specific things.) Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Repetitive linking of Human Eye
I'm not exactly sure why you have undertaken the task of linking human eye for numerous articles, though I see how it is useful for certain articles pertaining to eye diseases, etc. However, I am concerned about your repetitive linking of human eye under the appearance of 'eye' for both cataract and lens (anatomy). As I stated last week, in both articles the specific linking of human eye is misleading as cataract and crystalline lenses are not unique to humans. The eye article gives sufficient info about the subjects and does not imply that the subjects are unique to humans. I suggest considering the context of the use of 'eye' before making changes, and ask that you do not redo the edits I have reverted. Vindicata (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I double-checked the cataract article and have noticed the article is written solely from the POV of human cataract so in this case, your link may be justified. I am planning on addressing the issue of POV in the article, possibly suggesting to change the article name to Human Cataract or indicating within the article that it refers to human cataract while adding a section such as 'In other species', etc. If you have any thoughts on this, I would appreciate the input. Vindicata (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding changes from brain to human brain
Hi, lots of these changes make sense, but please give some thought to whether a given article is really specific to the human brain or refers to brains of nonhuman animals as well as humans. I am finding a need to revert a substantial number of your changes. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, please don't forget that most of anatomy related articles are tailored to human anatomy. In this sense, I think that most of my moves make sense. --Nono64 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I second Looie496's caution. Gene Wiki articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs in other species.  Hence it generally is not appropriate to change links in these articles (for example reelin) from brain to human brain.  Regards,  Boghog (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who really cares of animal reelin? Regards. --Nono64 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the studies on the function of reelin were done in animals and specifically mice. Hence in this article, the change from brain to human brain is especially inappropriate. Boghog (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Looie and Boghog. It makes sense in a few cases (antipsychotics are medicines for humans), but in a lot of cases the science doesn't go that way (regardless of whether or not a particular editor cares). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning this edit which I have reverted, the cited source starts with:
 * Animal studies Experimental data obtained on some animal models suggest that a reduction of Apn expression is associated with obesity and insulin resistance.
 * Please reconsider the indiscriminate changing of brain to human brain links. Thanks.  Boghog (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is another one that I have reverted: Although usually used on humanoid beings, ... Spock successfully performs the pinch on a horse-like creature. ;-) Boghog (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the edits where you have recently replaced old links to Brain with new links to Human brain, like here in Trauma (medicine) seem pointless. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing, since others have to spend their time going around and removing your unnecessary additions. Edison (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Your edits are now at the level of disruption and will likely lead to a block of your edit privleges if you continue. Numerous editors have taken issue with what you are doing, yet you have not stopped. There is clearly no consensus that your edits are correct or that your headstrong approach is winning any converts to support your position. I have reverted your edit to stroke, as this condition is well-known in a variety of other animals. Not just induced to study the human condition, but exactly the same naturally-occuring type of event and the same terminology is used to describe it. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have rolled back as vandalism your linkage to Human brain in the Engram (neuropsychology) article, since the article says correctly that Lashley unsuccessfully looked for engrams in the rat brain, while another researcher studied the rabbit brain. Many human brain functions and defects are studied in animal models. Edison (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In cases where there is an image of a section of a human brain (or a rat brain, for that matter) and it is identified only as "brain" it would be fine to identify the species in the illustration, since the form and proportions differ greatly. In cases where animals have been used as models to study a drug or medical condition or principle of function, it should probably be left brain. Edison (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nono64, numerous editors have now asked you to stop these edits, but you have continued to make them, which is, indeed, disruptive. Please see WP:ANI, where I have now reported you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fictional comic book creatures formed from electricity are not humans
Fictional comic book creatures formed from electricity, such as Zzzax, are not humans. I'm going to assume that you are not stupid and you know this, but instead you are blindly making edits without paying any attention at all to what you are doing, so please just stop it. Really, just stop it.
 * In this case the engineers were, presumably, human, however the link was an over-link anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Nanē (goddess) merger
Hi -- I notice you started the article for Nanē (goddess) and I wanted to see if you had an opinion as to whether it's the same entity as Nane (goddess) (without diacritic mark). Your article seems to repeat most of what's in the other one, which has the more detailed info. If this is two article about the same entity, I would want to merge and redirect into the one with the diacritic if appropriate. The discussion is here. Thanks. Woodshed (talk)

Disambiguation
I noticed you had done some useful work on binomial disambiguation, I would be cautious about creating new dab templates such as Physics disambiguation as there is a school of thought that says there are already to many dab templates. Rich Farmbrough, 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Turkish scientist stubs and Soviet scientist stubs
Dawynn (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Scaled quail
Just in case you didn't know (maybe you know better than I): there is no consensus on animals capitalization on WP. Whereas most other projects tend to use lower case, WP:BIRD firmly stands by their rules, and you'll likely get angry comments soon. Materialscientist (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2011 (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, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). 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 all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. 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) 20:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Acetylated Flavonols
Hello. I noticed you created a section of acetylated flavonols in Template:Flavonol. Can you explain to me what does it mean since by looking at the structures I cannot see any acetylation. --kupirijo (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the remark. I changed the name into "derivative flavonols". Cheers. --Nono64 (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Would prenylated be more appropriate? What is the structure of Rutin S? Is there such a compound or is it a typo? Cheers. --kupirijo (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

2-character navbox
Hello! Following the precedent you set in 2008 on the A1 series of letter-number combinations I just added them to the letter-letter combinations. This is now generating discussion. I explained my reasoning here. Would you care to weigh in? Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer on Jokestress' user talk page --Nono64 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Letter-number combination disambiguation pages
Hi, I see you were the one who set up Category:Letter-number combination disambiguation pages. I was surprised to find listed in this category not only letter-number combinations, but also two-letter combinations like If and ZT. Of course, those could potentially be interpreted as numbers in base 36 or something (just as FF can denote 255 in hexadecimal), but, other than the hexademical numbers, these dab pages don't treat these as numbers. After all, you could equally well treat, say, AAA as the hexadecimal representation of 2730, yet it is not in this category. If the category is being used as you intended, I'd be interested in understanding the rationale.... If not, there's some cleanup to do.... --Macrakis (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see conversation just above for explanation. Cheers! Nono64 (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi Nono64. In the interests of perhaps saving you some future effort, WP:NOTBROKEN indicates that there's no need to "fix" redirects if the redirect points to the correct place, as you did here. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Natural phenols and polyphenolic compound stubs
Dawynn (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Nono64 - I take it you didn't read the part of WP:SFD which said "DO NOT rename any stub type that has been nominated here while discussion is still in progress. Any necessary renaming will be done when the discussion is closed.". All doing that does is make the job of tidying up any renaming or deletion much harder! Grutness... wha?  08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I'll restore the template straight away. --Nono64 (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

D-8
When you redirected D-8 to D8, you neglected to ensure that all the items on D-8 were present on D8 or moved there. If you are going to combine disambiguation pages in the future please ensure that all links are moved. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Myrothamnus flabellifolius
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Myrothamnus flabellifolius, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.sntc.org.sz/flora/speciesinfo.asp?spid=1149.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Stubs
Bonjour Nono64!

There are now two separate stub templates: Natural-phenol-stub and Polyphenol-stub. The old template name, Natural phenol-stub, which didn't meet naming conventions for stub templates, will be deleted once it's no longer used on articles. Unfortunately, we need a bit of help, since it's impossible for non-chemists to tell easily which of the articles using the template are natural phenols, which are polyphenols, and which - if any - are both. Can you help us by looking through and seeing which articles should be marked as polyphenols? Thanks for any help you can give... Grutness... wha?  22:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of K152


The article K152 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Useless disambiguation page. I really don't think most people are going to be searching on the term K152.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safiel (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination
Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bxj (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Chemical diagram styles
Thanks for contributing so many diagrams for the molecules you are writing about! Many of the diagrams look fairly poor quality though...pixelated and jagged lines, some inconsistent fonts, etc. Might want to visit Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing for some formatting tips to make them look cleaner. I don't know what program you are using though, so I can't give any more specific hints. Let me know if I can be of assistance getting them with improved legibility and standard layouts. DMacks (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of N64 (disambiguation)


The article N64 (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No need for a disambig with only one target

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

P40
Sorry, I had to revert your edit. In wikipedia one cannot completely move content from one page to another one by cut-and-paste. Please take a look at the guidelines in Moving a page. Last Lost (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Cephalostachyum viguieri
Hi Nono, I noticed you created the redir of Cephalostachyum viguieri to Cathariostachys madagascariensis, and I see the latter shows it as a synon., but have found no evidence that it really is a synon. Do you know where a ref for it can be found? Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Hamamelis, Actually, if it is a synonym, the references given don't state it. So I can't remember why I created this redirect. The best thing to do in this situation is to ask an administrator to delete it. Do you need that I ask for it or do you want to create an article of your own? best regards! --Nono64 (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find enough for a minimal article, at least. If not we can ask for it to be deleted. Thanks! Hamamelis (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! Hamamelis (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! --Nono64 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Molecular diagrams?
Just in case you haven't noticed, there are some questions at Talk:Vitisin A (pyranoanthocyanin) re: the molecular diagram that you uploaded. DS (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Nono64 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Plasmodium
Re name change: There is a bit more to this page than just a list of Plasmodium species. For this reason I think the original name for the page would be better. Or perhaps a third alternative? DrMicro (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I checked the history. I am apparently not in the list of contributors to this article. So I don't understand the motive of this discussion. Can you be a a bit more specific? Cheers, --Nono64 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Karsch
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Karsch, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.karsch.net.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peter J. Schwendinger


The article Peter J. Schwendinger has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me 19:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The disambiguation page page Clypeola
Hello again Nono64. Apparently you have not read this page of Disambiguation does and don'ts. I have seen you do this before so maybe you don't yet know that it is against Wikipedia policy to list red links in a disambiguation page. And without the red link, this particular disambig page is not needed at all at least as yet. When someone finally gets around to writing Clypeola (gastropod), which could take years, simple hat notes on both articles would be sufficient anyway. Invertzoo (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! I created the stub article. That would be nice however to check thoroughly if there is not a synonymy issue here regarding Zegalerus. I'm sorry that I didn't find much by myself on the subject. Cheers! --Nono64 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the Clypeola article; I fixed it up a little. Still, as a rule, if there are only two pages that need differentiating, hat notes are sufficient to do that, without creating a disambiguation page. Watch out for red links in your other disambig pages and eliminate them as necessary. Invertzoo (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Donald S. Chandler


The article Donald S. Chandler has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sucker disambiguation
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fasciolopsis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Taenia asiatica, you may be blocked from editing. KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 19:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bayer to Bayer AG?
Hi, I'm not clear why this article has moved. Will the same be done to [British Airways], [Pfizer] or [Sanofi] for example? it would seem to me that people know these companies by the primary name not their incorporation status but then I'm not familiar with Wiki policies. Thanks TomorrowsDream (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty contrary to Naming conventions (companies) standard guideline (not normally added unless disambiguating on it, and definitely the commonname for this term so it gets non-DAB title). DMacks (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A question about a move
Hi. Did you have consensus in doing this? I recall there was a strong consensus against this move and I 'll suprpriced if the consensus changed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Moldovan records in athletics etc
Hi Nono64. You made a movelog. But this just make sense if you do it for all national athletic record pages. So why? Greets. Montell 74 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Science disambiguation
Template:Science disambiguation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Biochemistry disambiguation
Template:Biochemistry disambiguation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Tanning
What is the point of this new category? Tanning is just one, fairly narrow, aspect of leathermaking. I think it would be best to not create such a narrow category and fold tanning back into leathermaking where it belongs. Ferritecore (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mill's
Hi! You appear to have done a large amount of editing this morning which has resulted in a number of errors, with changing of the wiki link 'Mill' to Mill (grinding). I assume you may have done these via a bot. I have reverted some of your edits, IE these articles:- There may be more incorrect changes made by replacing the use of 'mill' with a general link to 'grinding mill', rather than a more specific wiki link to the type of mill referred to in the articles, as per:- Mill_(grinding), but I think that is really down to yourself to check and correct them. 11:16, 26 July 2011 (diff | hist)
 * Coat of arms of Kirklees - the mills referred to are a mixture of textile ‎mills, IE cotton and woollens, as opposed to grinding mills.
 * Halifax, West Yorkshire - again these are textile mills, mostly woollen, with some cotton.
 * Old Mill (West Tisbury, Massachusetts) - the mill was initially a Grist Mill then a Woolen Mill, so a link to grinding mill is not appropriate. (NB: US spelling woolen used on the article, as opposed to British English use of Woollen).
 * Mill ‎I have replace your deletion of the link to Milling machine from that disambiguation page as the entry is correct. Note, as an example, in the English language it is correct to say "I will need to 'mill' this component".
 * Thanks! For the milling machine, I just moved it to the "milling" disambiguation page. --Nono64 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of CECB units for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of CECB units is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Physics disambiguation
A tag has been placed on Template:Physics disambiguation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{substituted}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination
Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mandible
Hi Nono: Back in January 2011, you redirected the talk page for mandible to the human mandible article — and then wrote a more general article about mandibles. Would you mind if I now stopped the redirection of the talk page? Otherwise, we have no talk page for mandible itself. MeegsC | Talk 21:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking?
Some might consider the linking of lung to be overlinking. Has started a discussion. Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with many of these edits is these conditions can occur in any lung not just human ones and the link if linked at all should not restrict it to humans. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you where just changing a link rather than adding a link... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why move?
Hi, please see Talk:List_of_health_effects_of_wine. --Stefan talk 04:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have likewise reverted your analogous moves for List of health effects of tea and List of health effects of chocolate. DMacks (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And based on your extensive history of warnings for similar moves that have been disputed and that you have refused to discuss, I will block you the next time you make a move without discussion. You must slow down and get consensus first since it is clear your WP:BOLD is often controversial. DMacks (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * After the above warning, you have moved Polymnia (genus) to Polymnia (plant) with no evidence that you have discussed this on the article's talk page or consulted the relevant Wiki projects. This move would seem to be contrary to WP:FNAME  which lists Morelia (genus) as an example.  I am not certain, so I have started discussions  here, here, and here. Regardless of the outcome of those discussions, I find your refusal to discuss potentially controversial page moves very disturbing and this behavior really needs to stop. Boghog (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have blocked for 48 hours to prevent ongoing disruption. Ultimately correct or not after discussion, the lack of consensus-building after numerous editors have voiced concerns about your pattern here is a critical problem. DMacks (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Liz Madden


The article Liz Madden has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

human eye-stub
Dawynn (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic obsessive–compulsive disorder
This edit is absurd. Boghog (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let me explain in a little more detail why I think changing the link from heart to human heart is inappropriate. The hormones template and more specifically the Natriuretic peptide section of this template in turn links to atrial natriuretic peptide and brain natriuretic peptide that are both expressed in many other species besides human (see  and  respectively). Much of what we know about the human hormones comes from study of animal orthologs.  In addition, the animal orthologs are interesting in their own right.  Boghog (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In particular, this is the one that popped up on my radar. Are you really claiming that this is a human-specific effect??? DMacks (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been warned extensively by many others about this long-term concern, yet you do not discuss or attempt to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. I have no choice but to prevent this on-going problem...

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion
One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A1 Games


The article A1 Games has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable company. Stub with one source for three years.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)