User talk:Probios

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Slashme 09:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your feedback is appreciated - Sarah Palin - NPOV?
Please visit the discussion page to vote: is the page neutral or biased? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

E-infinity theory
Another editor has added the  template to the article E-infinity theory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Raven1977 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

- This article was about a physical theory that had hundreds of references at the journal of chaos, solitons and fractals. While the theory was new and suspiciously revolutionary (making the inventor a star at Egypt), I thought that it needed to be mentioned @ wiki. It was only later when the inventor of this theory was discredited as being the chief editor at the same journal and thus got his articles through without peer-review. However I still think that E-infinity theory should be mentioned here since there will be hundreds of future researchers who will be looking at these articles and should have a wiki-article to refer to. It should discredit the inventor but cite the ideas with the articles so that one could try to seek useful leads.

Speedy deletion of H1Z1
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as H1Z1, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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), 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. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

- This article was about a fictional virus during the H5N1 outbreak. It clearly stated that the virus in question was fictional and nothing else. I made it after a google search which revealed that some people believed the virus to be real. I wanted to ease their stress by giving the facts.

August 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

- My edition was wrong. I used hearsay for the edition of the article, but in good will. My attempt was to update wiki as early as possible thinking that I could delete the stuff at a later time point if it was proved to be wrong. The possible error would only exist for a brief moment so I thought it as an acceptable situation. I will not do this kind of mistakes anymore.

Strumus
I'm disappointed to see something like that from somebody who is clearly capable of making useful contributions. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- Of all the nice feedback that I have gotten, this was totally uncalled-for. This just demonstrates ignorance, and not on my behalf. The article that I made can be traced -as cited- to Nolte's book. Check the glossary, please. Probios (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take notice of WP:ANI. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- I can't believe this is happening. The information is from a neuroscience book that I cited. Now the article has been deleted, although I told that the source is legitimate and also explained all my previous "misbehaviors". Looie496, your ignorance has cost wikipedia an article that was truly valuable information source. Probios (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only information about this supposed part of the brain is in one text book. I've found the Spanish translation on Google Books. Do you not find it odd that the word "strumus" is unused on PubMed and that no mention of it as a brain region is included in Google Scholar? Where did this textbook get its information from, if no other sources at all use the word? Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do find it odd. However I believe that there could be clear reasons for this: the structure is small and it's functions are obscure, therefore it's not under fund-based research; also, the golden age of neuroanatomy is well behind us by now and NCBI doesn't seem to include every old article that has been published. Also, the structure or the whole region could possibly have an alternative name. I have now contacted John Nolte about his book and asked him to give references for strumus. Probios (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- Oops! I got a mail from Nolte that clears the issue: ''strumus, effluvium, and trivium are all lame attempts at neuroanatomical humor. Most readers don't notice the strumus, but once a year or so I get an email from a medical student someplace in the world asking about it.'' My bad, I'm sorry. Probios (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, he's a scamp...! *rolls eyes* I wondered if it were a copyright trap. Thank you for checking with Nolte, such an action is above and beyond the call of duty for most Wikipedia editors. I'd say this is a lesson against using a single source and an interesting spanner in the works of verifiability, not truth; it could be a case study. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Strumus
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Strumus, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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), 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. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of 2010–2011 midwinter animal mass death events for deletion
The article 2010–2011 midwinter animal mass death events is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2010–2011 midwinter animal mass death events 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. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting the article "The Big Bang Theory"
If you are true to this desire, I support you completely. It is hard to fight the establishment. They will either censor you or block you or just railroad decisions.

You are absolutely correct, and if you even think hard about it, their arguments about capitalization are incomplete/misleading because:

1) the trademarked name is in all caps 2) the name appears in the show/publicity materials as: the BiG BANG (THEORY or theory) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.14.35 (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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