User talk:RandomHumanoid/Archives/2007/June

'non-constructive' edits on :Image:Ireland.A2003004.jpg?
someone wrote "mmmm...mmmmm' or something like that under the image, so i removed it, because it seemed unnecessary. was mmm mmm an important piece of information? evidently it was, because you added it again. ...why?
 * I agree with him: it, simply, doesn't make sense, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. Sorry, I thought you had removed the image.  --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hike for CCRAP
Hi... Where's the vandalism in Hike for CCRAP? It's kind of spammy, and there's definitely a potential WP:COI problem, but what's the basis for warning the user against vandalizing? --Rrburke(talk) 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The editor removed my {unencyclopedic} tag without any discussion on the talk page. --RandomHumanoid 00:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the editor also rewrote the article to respond to the tag, and may have removed the tag because he believed the rewrite solved the problems specified by the tag. It's preferable to WP:AGF.  As well, an L3 warning is a little harsh, particularly for a new user.  It's better to start with  . --Rrburke(talk) 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I am always wrong. The vandals are raising my initial response levels this evening.  --RandomHumanoid 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Goodnight mush Talk  03:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but he's a returning vandal who's been warned before. And did you take a gander at his latest "contribution?"  Why wait for his next one?  --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement flag on GTD?
I don't see it. How come? Discuss.
 * Response on the linked page... --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 17:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:King and Philosopher
If a blocked user left a userpage behind, you can just replace the page with. There's no need to delete it.  bibliomaniac 1  5  An age old question... 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: User pages
WP:USER is the controlling policy of user pages and user talk pages. Basically, as long as nothing is objectionable or disparaging or controversial, it doesn't usually follow under criteria for speedy deletion. While I realize that this user placed his fictitious bio in the main namespace, I was assuming good faith and I figured that if he moved it to his user page, that would be fine. Obviously the information is / was untrue, however, I usually view user pages with a lot of liberality as to their contents. In the future, unless the content of a user page is objectionable, controversial, or really nonsense (e.g., fkdsjkfljsd), I would suggest putting it on Miscellany for deletion; though that's just my suggestion and it's your call whether or not to tag a page for speedy deletion. I hope that clarifies the issue. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the details! --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cabbage soup diet
Is there perhaps a better way to handle this, maybe going through WP:AFD? In any case, I'm not sure if it was a template you used or what, but I find the tone of the message you left on my page to be unnecessarily condescending and insulting (especially using a "welcome" message on someone who's been a WP contributor for something like three years now). In the future, please find a different way of phrasing messages of this sort. Haikupoet 05:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmnn, I use Twinkle to automate things. I'm not sure if it added that or I selected the template manually -- either is possible depending on circumstances.  Sorry, it does seem condescending for an article with a long history.  I actually thought the article was a joke as it sounded like something Roald Dahl would invent.  My apologies for the template selection.  I'm going to leave the article alone, as I've found to my great chagrin that this diet is real.  So be it.  Can't fight progress.  --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all good, then. Yes, it's quite real -- my mother tried it out something like fifteen-twenty years ago. The article is a spam magnet though, and I'm finding out needs to be watched carefully. Haikupoet 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my grandmother tried the Watermelon Diet many, many years ago. (Same idea, just substitute watermelons for cabbage soup.)  I say blech to both. :)  --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Words in Malayalam
Actually, I've been thinking, I'll just delete the page because it is just a list basically and not an article. More like a dictionary from the words I wrote so you can delete it. (User:Pittoop) 07:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, you'll have to wait for an admin to delete the article... --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam tag on RIMS
I mind it! I mind it so much I'm going to stomp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue unless you put it back! :) Nah seriously, thanks it does seem rather spammy to me too. Wildthing61476 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the laugh! :) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PHONE+ magazine and Xchange magazine
I posted a note at User talk:Dworford asking the original author of the articles Xchange magazine and PHONE+ magazine to supply references. I suspect that the two magazines are notable, but proving it may be difficult if the original author does not supply references. --Eastmain 23:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, they looked like pure spam to me for minor trade journals. If he can demonstrate otherwise, that'd be fine.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

UAA
Thank you for making a report at Usernames for administrator attention. Unfortunately your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post blatant infringements on this page. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, using the UsernameConcern template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern.
 * Try AIV for spam stuff as well. Glad to see you're still around here by the way... always nice to see a familiar face!  Jmlk  1  7  08:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Board of Trade Deletion
The new entry should be a lot better. Sorry, new at this. Thanks for the prompt feedback. --Denis Orellana 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better. Good work!  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The info is referenced now. --Denis Orellana 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This Is Hell
I was wondering if you would reconsider tagging the This is hell (radio) article for notability. The initial author calling it a podcast may have obscured the fact that it has been on air for ten years. Also, I feel the caliber of the guests is sufficient for notability. --Kommoner 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag. Thanks for cleaning up the article.  :) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 00:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. --Kommoner 00:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Greene
Greetings, Random:

I'm simply in the process of attempting to improve the Ellen Greene entry. While specific cites are not pinned in place at present, the information is in fact identifiably sourced to the reliable external links given, viz ibdb and imdb. I'll attempt to worry away at it and improve it over time. It's already, I believe, better sourced than it was previously, simply by providing ibdb as an external link. AtomikWeasel 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC) I think we're on a similar 'page,' then. I'll likely give it attention over time, here and there, and look to attempt to improve the entry appropriately. If anyone else happens along to contribute to the effort, so much the better. AtomikWeasel 05:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine and I realize you're still working on it. That's why I added the {underconstruction} tag to the article.  Happy editing! -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 04:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. I'm not entirely facile at markup issues, but I'll continue to attempt to refine and improve the entry over time. It appears, from looking at your user page, that many of our perspectives with respect to Wikipedia are indeed similar. Again, thanks for the positive feedback. AtomikWeasel 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You deserve it!

 * Thank you!!! :) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 05:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

#!$^^$#!!!
it's obvious the article should just be redirected to an article that has a third party link (Nikolas Theodoros Plakadopoulos III or Theodoros Plakadopoulos) is the same person as (Nikolas Theodoros Plakadopoulos III or Nikos Plakas III) its just two different transmutations of the same name
 * You are not allowed to remove AfD tags. There's nothing else to say about it.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The club link on that page isn't even the club's website it is a third party tourist site. is that vandalism? You don't know what i'm talking about? You ordered so many deletes in the last ten minutes that you can't remember? Club owner Nikos Plakas III I thought a third party site would about clubs instead of the actual clubs website would show the importance. For future reference what authority should I go to about the importance of clubs? Because there are a lot of subjects on wikipedia that only cite their own pages to prove their importance. User_talk:Haelstrom
 * Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about and please sign your messages. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your vandalism was to my talk page. Read the warning on your talk page.  It clearly indicates what the warning was given for.  You obviously didn't bother to read it before taking umbrage.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You said "There's nothing else to say about it." I disagreed. All I did was "have something else to say about it." Then you called shenanigans on me. User_talk:Haelstrom


 * You need to read WP:CIVIL. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

7 Day Theory
That's not my article. But do what you have to do. I usually don't care about these horrible hip-hop related articles. My history clearly states: Improvements. And to look at these articles as explained in my most frequently written articles, I see a lot of lacking research in each article. I practically gave up on hip-hop anyways. But if you need support in the AFD, then I am for it. Thanks again. Keep up the good work. LILVOKA 06:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see -- you have moved it to "The Seven Day Theory" from the "7 Day Theory." That notice was inserted by WP:TW automatically to the "first" editor, which was technically you.  I should have checked to insure it was sent to the actual creator.  I'll go fix this now.  Sorry for the bother!  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. LILVOKA 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy of posting on Haelstrom's page
Hi User:Haelstrom and thanks for your e-mail to me directly rather than on wiki. To clarify, I'm not an administrator on this project, or though I like to think I am a relatively seasoned editor. I will review your comments and the actions of User:RandomHumanoid and User:Nishkid64 if you wish, and certainly make a comment here. However I would say that your e-mail address incorporting "randomhumanoidsucks" is not a great start. Please remember WP:CIVIL is a policy that I presonally feel WP:IAR does not apply to. I wish you the best when your block ends, and will add a comment when I have reviewed the situation. I have copied this post to both the other editors for transparency. Pedro | Chat  09:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on User_talk:Haelstrom to centralize. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also replied there. You will, of course, appreciate that your comment of "I'll guess he spammed a large number of editors/admins with his appeal. I think his record here speaks for itself." has been ignored by myself in the intrests of assuming good faith, reviewing the contributions directly, and not accepting on face value comments by any party, however "senior" or "established" they may be. That not withstanding, I found nothing by yourself or Nishkid64 that was, IMHO, wrong or out of line; you were both civil and pleasent as I would expect and the block was justified. Cheers. Pedro |  Chat  18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Süleyman Başak
I said not keep, but weak keep, which --at least as I use it--informally means I wasn't going to defend the article further and I considered a delete as a reasonable opinion. The nom withdrew, based on my opinion, but that was his decision. I would have closed it as no consensus. It wasnt 53 total cites, it was 53 on those two papers alone. The total count was probably about 100. What also influenced me was the rep. of his current position, where he got the PhD, his associate editorships, and especially the excellent quality of the particular journal he published the two papers in. & I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to 3rd world. If he had not been 3rd world, or the journal had been of lower rep., I might have said Neutral or just Comment. DGG 17:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, your intended meaning of "Weak Keep" was not obvious to me. I know we are at opposite ends of the inclusion-deletion spectrum, but I do appreciate the amount of effort you frequently expend investigating notability. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think of you as that extreme and hope you don't think that way of me. I know people who are more so in either case, and I share your intolerance for bad articles. I get my greatest satisfaction not from keeping something, but improving it enough so others want to keep it without my saying anything. But my feeling is there is so much unmitigated junk here that we should just pass over the borderline. DGG 01:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think getting rid of the borderline material makes the junk appear even more egregious, and therefore, more likely to disappear. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 03:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Apple (rabbi)
I have rewritten the article. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 07:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just cleaned it up a bit, but an autobiography from a rabbi makes me think of a baal gaiva.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 03:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Beck
The Robert C. Beck article.

Was it the alternative medicine angle of the article or what exactly that made your decision to vote to delete it? Oldspammer 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't even know where to begin. The "U.S. Psychotronics Association?"  "SuperLearning 2000?" "Mega Brain Power?"


 * I cannot comment from personal experience about brain stimulators or biofeedback devices, however, the brain has neurons.


 * The neurons are electro-chemical cells. It is not impossible that some form of electro-stimulation would have some kind of external influence on the brain?


 * I am not interested in brain stimulation anyway, but could research more into it if you want some validation of the concepts involved? Oldspammer 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of gibberish is this quote: One item that he did stress in a Google Video lecture was that the 'electrification treatment' had an amplifying effect on other medications and herbs taken by the patient, thereby multiplying by as much as 30 to 40 fold their effects. (Where precisely did he publish this brilliant insight?)  IMHO, the article is utter nonsense and he is completely unnotable outside the lunatic fringe. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 05:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I wrote some of the article text in my own words and used the phrase "amplifying effect" on my own to paraphrase what he was saying.


 * I have watched both of the referenced videos. Maybe you do not have the time or inclination to do so, or your internet connection is too slow for watching streaming videos?


 * I am not highly educated, so I may have misinterpreted what was explained, and gotten the words mixed up or something.


 * In his mid 70s Beck was quite eccentric. Some things that he said were wacky, but other things seemed to check out OK.  I kept a patient, open mind through out the "ordeal" of the entire set of videos so that I would not dismiss this guy's message out of hand.


 * From what I can gather from the explanation about the "amplifying effect" is that absorption and transmission of blood nutrients augments only during current flow.


 * From my confused understanding of it, perhaps something physical happens concerning the blood cells, or about other components where cellular membranes have altered permeability or some such?


 * I may be wrong, but the term "electrophoration" was used in context with this phenomenon. When I used a free online dictionary, the closest word that I found was "electrophoresis."  Some of the U.S. patent documents use the "electrophoration" word specifically when talking about filtering and toxins in the context of killing pathogens (AIDS) in donated blood for the purposes of keeping the donated blood supply risk-free for those requiring transfusions of such blood products.  The two words undoubtedly have unrelated meanings? Oldspammer 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a link that I got from PubMed on electrophoration - National Institute of Health I searched for >electric-current electrode blood< (or similar) on PubMed and fished around a bit. Oldspammer 10:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since he's a not an author of that article, what's its relevance to establishing his notability? It's easy to see the term has been used via Google.  My opinion remains that you're going to have an enormous uphill battle to establish any credibility for this fellow.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 14:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt
Hi! During the recent AfD discussion about the article Carl Hewitt you expressed some concerns about the article, and suggested that it needed to be rewritten. I have undertaken a substantial rewrite of the article in an attempt to address the concerns raised by you and other editors, and would appreciate it if you could look over the current state of the article to see if you have any suggestions for further improvement. Thanks. --Allan McInnes (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do as soon as I have a chance. Thanks for your note!  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 16:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You take Wikipedia too seriously
It's not serious business.


 * I'll give that comment all the consideration it's due. (By the way, have you checked out ?  That may be more to your liking :) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM
What's the vandalism in the comment I wrote for you. Seriously what's the problem. Instead of posting a warning on my page let me know what's the problem. Besides I might get banned from Wikipedia, but what's the piont? I just want to know what's the problem. Would you please let me know?
 * Can you find anything in this that violates WP:Civil?  If you can, there's your answer.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense
Hey, you were right the first time about the speedy tag on Killerloox, it's an A7 article. Quoting to you from Patent nonsense, "Fictional story material (characters, settings, events, etc. which are only interesting to fans)". - Zeibura (Talk) 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know but I do consider the text utterly nonsensical. I think it's something of a judgment call on this one. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 08:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

removing an entry
I'm coming to you with my question because of your (very objective and reasonable) comments on the entry for Ayman Ahmed el-Difrawi. (Full disclosure: I work for Mr. Difrawi.) The original author of the entry seems to have a bias against Mr. Difrawi, and you yourself have pointed out that many of the references are questionable at best. Another employee tried (without my knowledge) to simply blank out the entry, but, of course, that action was reversed by the bots. The same employee then tried to post a brief (and, admittedly, not comprehensive) bio -- which, of course, was changed once again to the original entry. It seems evident that maintaining a NPOV -- on either side -- is going to be exremely difficult, if not impossible.

It has been suggested that the entry be removed due to Mr. Difrawi's lack of notability. In fact, I've e-mailed Wikipedia on behalf of Mr. Difrawi, respectfully requesting that the entry be removed, but I have as yet received no response. Do you agree that the entry should be removed? If so, can you advise me on the best way to go about doing that?

I appreciate any help you can offer in this matter. DylanKate 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for being straightforward about your association with Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. I do think the article should be deleted, as it is simply not notable.  However, when someone announces they are in the midst of rewriting the article, he/she is generally given the chance to fix problems before it can be considered for deletion.  Now that it is locked, a nomination for deletion will delayed further.  However, given that you work for the article's subject, you should not directly edit the article yourself, unless it is to remove blatantly egregious (e.g., libelous, patently false, etc.) material.  Please read both WP:NPOV and WP:Auto to understand what kind of edits are acceptable here.  Let me ask you: is there something factually untrue in the article as it currently stands that you want removed? -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't follow proper procedures, but I am (as I'm sure you can tell) a new Wikipedia user, although I frequently refer to the site. I've been reviewing the guidelines, but I haven't gotten through them all yet, and I appreciate your patience with me in the meantime.

I never made any edits to the entry myself; despite my inexperience, I do realize that would be inappropriate. I apologize if some of my co-workers, in an abundance of zeal to defend our employer, have crossed the line. I don't know how the entry became locked, and I don't know Riana, the administrator who locked the entry. Might that have been in response to my e-mail requesting that the entry be deleted?

I have read both WP:NPOV and WP:Auto, and I agree that both guidelines are fair and important. I have no intention, now or in the future, of violating either one. To answer your question: To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing factually untrue in the article as it stands now. However, I would still prefer to have it removed. DylanKate 20:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry became locked as it appeared to be experiencing what is known as an "edit war," likely combined with its potential for violating the official policies outlined in WP:BLP. It is now in what is known as a "cooling off" period, to let everyone calm down before it is reopened for editing again.  As you'll note in my most recent entry to its talk page, there appears to be more going on here than the article is reporting.  I'm not quite sure what my position on the article is at the moment, given this additional information.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Temporary unprotect
You may want to ask User:Riana, the protecting admin for such a request. I'm not willing to escalate this already volatile article into a war.  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for your note. I just want to clean it up to remove concerns relating to WP:LIBEL.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Our bickering is making the AFD unnecessarily long. What about List of British-Jewish journalists? If it existed. Bulldog123 01:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry for interfering, but from the statistical point of view Jews are more notable than Caucasians, even if we consider Jews and other non Jewish white people as a distinct groups (and  despite that most of the Jewish communities (and all of the European Jewish communities) do related genetically, originally Jews are also,, racially  speaking, Caucasians even if not Europeans), which is a very flawed thing do to,( i.e. there are many ethnic groups, many times with great difference between them, almost in every aspect- including genetics, among European Caucasians- so you cant see Caucasians as "one group") Jews are, at least statistically, still much more notable. More, if you would check the history carefully, I don’t think that aside from 200-300 years the  European Caucasians achivments were some how more notable than those of the Asians .--Gilisa 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I heard RandomHumanoid is a fascist.**********************************
 * I'm all for deleting articles that have no historic value. I don't a priori see how a list of British-X journalists, for any X, would be notable unless there was something exceptional about it that I haven't considered.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 01:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. What about other prize or honors? IE: Knighthood. Would this be justifiable for division? Bulldog123 01:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would likely treat prizes differently. I'd have to consider this on a case-by-case basis.  For example, I think you'd have great difficultly making the argument that a list of Jewish Nobel Laureates is not notable, given its statistical improbability.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 01:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, List of Caucasian Nobel Laureates is not notable, but it has a massive statistical improbability. Also List of Female Nobel Laureates was deemed non-notable a while back when it was considered for creation. It also has a statistical improbability. Of course, division by Nobel Prize seems only slightly more reasonable in comparison to this. According to the previous AFDs, there use to be a lot more Jewish Fellowship lists. They all seem to be deleted rather quickly except for this one, which survived twice because of no consensus conclusions. It's just hard for me to understand why THIS particular list is being favored but so many others were not. Bulldog123 02:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to brush up on your statistics. Given the geographic distribution of groundbreaking scientific research during the lifetime of the Nobel Prizes, that Caucasians have predominantly won them is not even remotely improbable.  It fact, it is precisely the opposite.  Had the Nobel prize been awarded during the height of Tang Dynasty, I suspect the Chinese would have cornered the market.  That would not have been improbable either.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 02:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's brushing up on demographics, not statistics. And for the record, during the age of the Tang Dynasty, the Chinese outnumbered Europeans (Cauasians) even more than they do today. So in terms of world overrepresentation, had the Nobels been awarded during the Tang Dynasty, it would make perfect sense for them to have cornered the market. Besides, now we're switching to geographic distrubtion of groundbreakign scientific research? Come on. Stick to your example and don't branch out in order to save the argument. The fact is I still have no idea why Jewish Fellows is a notable list but so many other lists like it aren't. I feel moreso as if you just don't want to admit the flaws in your argument. The last sentence might come out uncivil but I'm not trying to make it like that. I just don't know how else to word it. Bulldog123 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you mentioned improbabilities, so you needed to be corrected in your statistical evaluations. And demographics are inherently related to statistics in this argument.  (And you'll have to take my word on this: you're arguing with the wrong person if you want to debate statistics.)  As for the article we've been discussing, I think it's historically notable.  You don't.  Thus, I think we're at an impasse, and I really don't think you have access to my internal thought processes.  (If you do, I suggest you find more profitable uses for your remarkable powers.)  Finally, with all the junk articles here, I'm sure we'll find plenty to agree on in future AfD nominations. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 04:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the statement that Caucasians winning the vast majority of Nobels is almost as mass an overrepresentation as Jews' winning when compared to the population? Nothing. So I don't know what your whole lecture was about. I'm not arguing with you about Bayesian probability. Glad I found someone who's a big fan of himself, but I'm not here to argue about how much of a professional you are in your field. I want some form, any form, of evidence to state that the delay between the Edict and the first Jewish member was because of anti-semitism and not just chance. Seeing as this is your singular justification for the lists notability, it should be substantiated. Bulldog123 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statements about likelihoods are factually wrong. If you make fundamentally wrong claims on my talk page, please don't be surprised if I correct you.  As for lecturing you, I'm afraid I don't have the time for that.  Now, I'm not sure I'd claim membership in my own fan club, but I obviously know a great deal more about evaluating probabilities than you do, as evidenced by the comments you've been making here, which are simply false.  As for the antisemitism question, do you really suppose if the Jews hadn't been forced out of Britain for 366 years and then denied citizenship for another 97 years, a Jew wouldn't have been made a fellow of the royal society before 1828?  This is simply what is driving my rationale for notability.  It has nothing to do with promoting original research, as this belief is not represented in any article.  WP:NOR doesn't not apply to such evaluations.  From  AfD/Wikietiquette: please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. That is all I have done on Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination).-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 04:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oldest trick in the book is to say someone is wrong but not explain why they are wrong. As for "WP:NOR not applying to evaluations." This is more than just an evaluation. It's the entire justification for the retention of the list. Many people are considering the list a non-notable intersection, so the justification for why it is notable can't be what some guy came up with while in the bathroom. In other words, it can't be your assumption that it had to be anti-semitism and not simply a small uninvolved population. Bulldog123 07:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First you complain I'm lecturing you and then you complain I'm not lecturing you. I think we're done here.  Have a nice day.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 07:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between a lecture and an explanation. And clearly you have no explanation and resort to pseudo-sincere comments such as "have a nice day." Gosh, I haven't seen that one before from nearly every wikipedian who is too full of themselves. Nice work playing off every fallacy in the book. "Regards," Bulldog123 07:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your tone is consistently hostile and provocative. It makes conversations with you consistently unpleasant, which is why I ended this one.  Have a day.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 07:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And you somehow are pleasant and non-patronizing? I simply return what I'm given. As you can judge for yourself, whenever you wrote a nice comment, I responded with the same tone. And you can see for yourself, the instigation of hostility was with your patronizing comments such as "You need to brush up on your statistics." Bulldog123 07:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's end this thread and peaceably go our separate ways. This is leading nowhere.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 07:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I rather just civily start over. There's no point in letting bad feelings go unresolved. Bulldog123 07:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OAKKE
Hi. I just noticed you added an npov tag in OAKKE article. I removed i line that i think it's breaking the NPOV rule. Can we now remove the npov tag? -- Magioladitis 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note. Let me look at it later today and if there's a problem, I'll leave a message on its talk page.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)