User talk:Sifaka

Hello everyone and welcome to my talk page! I love feedback. One quick note on talk page cleanup, I may add to the titles of discussions so I can look for a discussion more easily in the menu! If the topic has no title, I will add one. Sifaka  talk

noah's ark zf

 * yeah, I think my edits conflicted with yours. i was intending re-adding Oxford (as it proves that even university edited people can be stupid) and controversial. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Sifaka started this with the following post on the talk page of Jezhotwells) I'm going to start up a new section on the article talk page to explain why I made these edits. If you can, please respond. Thanks.  Sifaka   talk  23:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking back at your revert, I think it is a better course of action to manually change back only the controversial parts of someone's edits rather than blanket revert the whole thing. It is frustrating to not know what exactly another editor is objecting to when an edit involves multiple parts. Sifaka   talk  00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, sorry. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob! :) Sifaka   talk  01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ADHD
The reference you gave said ADHD is a combination of genetics and the environment, however was used to support a statement saying it is primarily genetic. Twin studies are just one justification for genetics. Also please leave the refs on one line. Makes editing easier. Cheers.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'm not too good with the citation format. You'll probably have a fit with the edit I just made which has six sources in a row. I don't think that the statement I was using the source for was saying ADHD was primarily genetic; but I like the change you made so I won't nitpick. Sifaka   talk  00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sifaka. I said I might try to list the areas of controversy, but you've already done that in the section "ADHD Issues where there is active debate". But that is 'hidden' as a subheading below the failed RfC. I'd like to change that heading to a major ==point== and add ===subheadings=== for your numbered points. Then others can add to each subsection. Is that OK? - Hordaland (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Sifaka   talk  02:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

MCOTW
JFW | T@lk  16:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Java
Hey, I saw from your userpage that you dabble in Java. If you've ever been interested in applying that to Wikipedia, I've found these class libraries pretty useful. They're basically a wrapper for the MediaWiki API, and I've used them to create a few basic tools that help me do what I do here (none of which are ready to be shared, and most of which probably shouldn't even be mentioned, but they make things easier and more interesting for me). There are also a useful set of Python modules, but I suck at coding in Python so they're not much use to me. MastCell Talk 22:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Sifaka   talk  00:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Sobo commenting
I recently answered some questions you had on the ADHD page regarding my status visa vis ADHD Yours, Simon Sobo MD. User:Ss06470 14:07, 10 June 2009 original dif here

Article for Duke University Newspaper, The Chronicle, on Duke Wikipedia Page
Hi there! I apologize in advance if this is the incorrect way to communicate with you, but I've never used "talk" before. I'm a rising sophomore at Duke University and am writing an article for the paper on Duke's Wikipedia page, and I had noticed you had edited that article. I was just wondering why you edited the page, if you have any affiliation with the University, and any and all comments you may have regarding the page. Feel free to reach me here, via email: , or via AIM: . Thank you very much! Haahaamagician (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre history
Hi there! Pre history is the place to be for Mother Goddess. This myth is the basis of art and religion in Pre History. And still isn´tt that funny that there are people out there who still say matriacrhy didn´t not exist??!! wow, women shaped art, consolidate agriculture, family and religion..Butm within a male (and very poor POV) thsi society was not a matriacrhy!! Yes, absolutely it was..."BUT" women didn´t have "power" (LOL)...what kind of power one still needs after shape all these? A political power --in Pre History, likw what? Congress?? Vote? Democracy?? Power over men?? After shaping teh whole society...they, ops!!, didn´t have "power"! So, thus, logically, then...the society was not matriarcal!! LOL!!! A very modern concept of society (and power) applied to Pre history...sounds funny to say the least! Jackiestud (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I don't understand your comment. I changed the see also link mother goddess on the prehistoric art page to prehistoric religion which is more general and covers topics like mother goddess. I'm afraid I can't understand the bulk of your comment though. If you would like me to reply, please clarify your statements. Thanks, Sifaka   talk  19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message
Done and duly added, thanks.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I saw your brain storm.  A war of attrition.  That pretty accurately sums this entire mess up, not that I ever wanted this.  I am a vandalism patroller, and I enjoy editing and writing about Irish and Colonial American history primarily, but all I find myself doing now is defending myself from charges by one poster for placing my thoughts on a talk page in a human rights article.  This is a nightmare.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Details on the date pages
Worc63 deleted a bit of this conversation from his user page. Here are the difs of my additions. July 1st, July 2nd, July 4th, July 4th later, July 6th I added in the full text below for recordkeeping. Indenting was changed in the process. Sifaka  talk  03:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (19:51, 6 January 2009) (33)

I just wanted to let you know that I think you removed some potentially useful details from some of the date pages. I believe that briefly describing what the person is most notable for is relevant and helpful. I went back through and readded a lot of the details for several date pages. In the future, it's probably better not to get rid of the details as long as they are concise and of course sourced in the main article. Also for future reference, it would be good to note you are removing details in your edit summary. Thanks, Sifaka   talk  05:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * >> I just wanted to let you know that I think you removed some potentially useful details from some of the date pages.<<
 * Just exactly what "some potentially useful details" are you talking about? Take your time trying to come up with something.
 * >> I believe that briefly describing what the person is most notable for is relevant and helpful.<<
 * That was EXACTLY what I was trying to do before you reverted my changes to EXCLUDE the subjects' nantionalities I had included!
 * >> Also for future reference, it would be good to note you are removing details in your edit summary.<<
 * Ummm, let's see. On the Hammond's postulate page on 19 February 2006, you wrote: "(minor edits to improve readability. If someone would like to add some history of the postulate it would make me happy!)" -- as if anyone gives a bleep what would make you happy! Practice what you preach before self-righteously busting someone else's contributions! Worc63 (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did revert your changes but I went back through and readded most of your contribs. I added all the nationalities back if you check the difs. I only reverted a few of the pages because it meant I had to change fewer things. It would be wise to check my edits in the history tab before you claim that I removed things. By useful details I mean a brief summary of why the person is notable or their notable accomplishments like "President of France" or "Inventor of X computer method". It improves readability. Also my edits (especially three year old ones) are irrelevant to this discussion. I was offering you constructive criticism on how to make good edit summaries in good faith. Sifaka   talk  00:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you removed more details on the articles June 20 and August 3 and also failed to note in your edit summary you removed them. I restored them. While the additions of the people's nationalities are helpful and encouraged, the removal of the notable details of the various listed is not. Please refrain from removing them in the future. Thanks, Sifaka   talk  00:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the third time I have notified you about removal of notable details on the date pages, specifically February 11. While the additions of new names and people's nationalities is appreciated do not remove notable details about the other people on the page. Also you failed to note you removed details in your edit summary. If you continue I will report this on the Content noticeboard. Sifaka   talk  17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * >>This is the third time I have notified you about removal of notable details on the date pages, specifically 11 February. While the additions of new names and people's nationalities is appreciated do not remove notable details about the other people on the page. Also you failed to note you removed details in your edit summary. If you continue I will report this on the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Sifaka talk 17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)<<<
 * I'm just out here in cyberspace minding my own business when - out of the thousands of Wiki contributors - you decide to pick on me! I try to do my best to help Wiki -- God knows why I bother since I ain't getting jack for my time and trouble! And your edits are relevant, since you see fit to slam my edits! You want to report me, go ahead, you arrogant little snot! WTF are they going to do? Suspended my account? Don't think so! Even if they do, so what?! I got way better things to do than waste my time on this -- and on you! Worc63 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, personal attacks and "name calling" are unacceptable; it's highly inappropriate and immature. Also please assume good faith; let me clearly state that I'm not "out to ban you." I believe I told you above that I appreciate the additions of nationalities and new names to the date pages, and I never said your additions were irrelevant. On the contrary, I think the majority of your additions are wonderful and helpful. The problem I have is that other good stuff is getting removed in the process. I decided that simply reverting everything including your good faith and useful edits would be a poor idea and detrimental to Wikipedia. However, going back and manually undoing parts of the edits you spent time on is both a waste of your time and mine. I thought it would considerate to notify you. After I notified you about it, you continued to make the same kinds of edits anyway. In your first response to me, you never explained your point of view on the removal of notable details. Because you didn't respond, that's why I chose to bring the content noticeboard into the picture. If you wouldn't listen or have a constructive discussion with me, then I hoped you would respect an unrelated party's input on the matter. Currently I have not posted on the content noticeboard; if I do I will inform you. I was hoping we could reach a compromise before then.
 * Also, remember that I am a volunteer too. Please consider my point of view, I am trying have a discussion with another user, but I get called an "arrogant little snot" and "his majesty." That's no fun for me either. Sifaka   talk  01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Firearms structure
Thank you for your comments on the SG 550 article! Your input is appreciated. We are currently having a discussion about changing the firearms article structure guidelines and we need more outside input. If you would like to participate, any comments would be appreciated. [|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proposed modification of Firearm article structure]]. Some guy (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Athena
Hello, weel, according to this source Athena is a mother goddess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potnia_Theron Jackiestud (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source on which is said that mother goddesses can´t be virgins?? I neve heard of it. Jackiestud (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Call for online sources - Lemur re-write
I think I'm settled in enough at my new home in Durham, NC to force myself to sit down and re-write the Lemur page, much as I have previously done with Ring-tailed Lemur, Ruffed Lemur, Gray Mouse Lemur, List of lemur species, etc. Due to my preferred editing style, you unfortunately won't see any significant changes until I complete it and post it in its entirety. I plan to use your list of suggestions posted on the talk page for Lemur, but was also wondering if you have some online sources that I could work from. For example, you mentioned the following categories, and I don't think I have many sources to do the topics justice:


 * Behaviors pertaining to rank within a group: i.e. who grooms who
 * Mate selection
 * Information from cognitive studies coming out of the Duke primate center are good sources
 * Biomechanics studies on lemurs

I just started volunteering at the Duke Lemur Center, but I don't want to wear out my welcome by inundating them with requests for information. I may ask for a few things on Monday, but if you could help out by providing accessible references, that would help a ton. –Visionholder (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll post sources on the main Lemur talk page. Sifaka   talk  03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info. Please be patient on the re-write.  It's taking me longer than I expected, partly due to writer's block and partly due to the need for extensive literature review.  I hope to spend tomorrow evening, all day Wednesday, and most of Thursday evening working on it.  I'm not sure if I'll be able to make it to the Duke library, but we'll see.  I just hope to get it to GA status immediately.  During the push to FA, I hope to do more detailed research.  I'm also trying to keep in mind that this is a general article on lemurs, and that much of the detail should be reserved for the family, genus, and species pages.  Anyway, I hope to post the page within the coming week... but don't be surprised if it takes 2 or 3 weeks to complete.  –Visionholder (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

the ip user's constant vandalizing
I had to revert IP User:98.196.203.155 because he vandalized the KTXH article, then i notice that he has previously had a run-in with you, so, i want to let you know that i reported him to an administrator. ---  M  eteor  Man  7228  02:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbingia
I did vacillate about blocking, but then noticed that in the time I was vacillating, it had been pasted into two more random locations. The block's only short-term - a bit over a day - and is really just to stop it continuing to be dumped around the place; since they weren't showing any sign of desisting, and there wasn't a protectable page as such, it seemed the best option...

I admit I might have been a bit less brusque had the article not been an elaborate work of fiction :-) Shimgray | talk | 17:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed a distinct lack of google results which raised red flags. I also considered the possibility of misspelling, but I don't didn't see any obvious alternatives. I pointed him to the your first article help page which goes over hoax articles I believe, so maybe he will learn more about protocol in the mean time. Sifaka   talk  17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

your action required
Greetings sifaka, your action is required to move the article along. Thanks,--scuro (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

tags in talk
Hello Sifika. I saw that you removed tags in talk. I did take the trouble to put them up so I would appreciate if you waited until I at least responded before you removed them. Now I'm not going to get into an edit war over tags, but instead would reintroduce the section that you feel is stale. Personally, I think that just clutters up the talk page but don't mind doing that if that is your wish. Otherwise, it would be appreciated if you could change the tags back. Thanks--scuro (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.15.144 (talk)

notes for myself
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/104454601750143384 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16511362 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19022169 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/4/730 http://www.child-psych.org/2009/07/adhd-medication-may-prevent-future-psychiatric-disorders.html Sifaka  talk  01:05, 5 November 2009 (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) 23:06, 10 June 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 18:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Prix Fixe bad behavior record
Sifaka  talk  04:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 03:00 added Prix fixe to disambiguation of Fixed price as an IP
 * 03:00 Edit got reverted by Materialscientist
 * 03:00 Warning for unconstructive edit by Materialscientist put on talk page, likely in error because the vandalism detection tools tend to misfire for foreign language borrowed terms
 * 03:35 Notified Materialscientist their rollback was in error
 * 03:36 restored Prix fixe to disambiguation
 * 03:38 Left message on article talk explaining Prix fixe means "fixed price"
 * 03:41 Flighttime removes article talk page discussion explaining reason for including Prix fixe with message "Says who?"
 * 03:41 warned by FlightTime
 * 03:42 FlightTime reverts Fixed price with message. "Ifm you want to change things like this, article talk page is where you need to go". Note that this is a minute after he deletes the article message in question.
 * 03:42-03:43 Flighttime deletes and restores my misfire message on Materialscientist's talk saying I need to use the article talk page, which Flighttime had deleted
 * 03:49 Restored article talk that Flighttime deleted
 * 03:50 notified flighttime on talk page that deleting other people's article talk messages is not constructive
 * 03:51 Flighttime removes the message from his talk page
 * 03:55 added Prix fixe to disambiguation of Fixed price, noting FlightTime unconstructively deleted the talk page message in question