User talk:Axlq

Template:Long Wikibreak Hi! Use this page to talk to me about my articles, edits, or reversions. I will respond here. If I contact you on your talk page, please respond there. =Axlq

Sailing hydrofoil

Omg. What was I thinking. :D LOL I was being absentminded when I slapped navy instead of water stub. :D Thanks for fixing that in.''F3-R4'' 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

''F3-R4'' has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

No problem, thanks. =Axlq 16:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Xylitol

Thanks for the discussion in Talk:Xylitol today. I created my account so that I could add that comment. I appreciated your quick response to my first comment and your supportive response to my reply.

Someone came by this afternoon who was able to cite the medical journal the report appeared in. They did much better than I could have come up with just my Reuter's story.

By that time I'd built up enough confidence doing little edits that I felt comfortable refactoring the section.

Thanks again... BigrTex 03:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome — looking forward to seeing your contributions. You may find that participating in Wikipedia is addictive. =Axlq 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spambot

That could be, but we generally don't indef block IPs, simply because they can be used my multiple users who might be innocently affected. If they continue spamming after the block expires, I will enact a longer block, but not indefinite. Thanks. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

antiquarian

This conversation has been moved to User talk:68.101.67.16 for continuity. =Axlq 14:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to the peer review. 68.101.67.16 16:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Marine Biology

Conversation moved to User talk:Shy1520 for continuity. =Axlq 03:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Link deletion

I was just curious why you deleleted the 'UK independant health site' on the link for Netdoctor within the Erectile dysfunction article ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melisclark (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove the link. I edited the description. The link is still there. =Axlq 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Governorpataki.jpg

Regarding Image:Governorpataki.jpg, you have disputed that the image is a replaceable fair use image and you wrote: "Replaceable fair use tag above was placed erroneously by an overzealous editor. The image comes from a free source that clearly states its purpose as a place for anyone to download images. It makes no sense to demand a "free replaceable image" for an image that is already free for public use.".

I have replaced it with Image:Pataki cropped.JPG, which is available under a free license. If you believe that this replacement image is not an adequate replacement then you can comment on the image talk page, but if the replacement image is adequate perhaps you could consider removing the disputed tag?

Sincerely, --Oden 17:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have removed the tag I placed. =Axlq 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IIPM Advertising Controversy

Hi AxlQ, thank you for voting on the RfD. Do you know of any other precedent for handling a similar controversy on Wikipedia articles? Iipmstudent9 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look through other AfD discussions over a period of time, you will see other examples of consensus preferring non-notable content to be merged into another article. That was the basis of my vote. =Axlq 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

speedy delete

If you say that the article does not meet WP:NPOV , why don't you edit the article, instead of suggesting speedy delete?

By the way, is there a definition for vanity article in Wikipedia:Portal ? Tonytypoon 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not suggest speedy delete due to NPOV, but rather non-notable bio reasoning. I also don't see the point in fixing up an article I believe should be deleted. I do occasionally fix up articles in danger of deletion, see Xtracycle for example. Not this time.

I haven't seen an official definition of a vanity article. I think it's understood that vanity means the article's author is also the subject, or it was written by someone associated with the subject (friend or family, for example). I only said the NPOV language suggested a vanity article; probably a poor choice of words on my part. =Axlq 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

you speedy deleted music thanatology this is a definition of music for the dying. Music for the dying is a copyright infringment? Water for the thirsty is a copyright infringment? Saying that coke/pepsi is a drink is copyright infringment? What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I speedily deleted nothing. An administrator deleted it after agreeing with my deletion proposal. All the text was copied directly off another web site as I detailed in my deletion proposal; therefore, yes, it was a copyright violation. -Axlq 04:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd

Conversation moved to User talk:71.54.193.153#Looking for help?

2000s in comics

Thanks for that. The whole area has been a niggling concern to me since I discovered there were similar entries for comcs as there were for other media but despite sketching others out, linking in to them and adding Comics Project headers there has been little activity and as it stands it can't sustain those decades in comics entries and I've given thoughts for fixing things: Talk:2000s in comics#PRODed. Hopefully this should get things moving and finally resolve the situation and get more editors working on the avrious entries. I've dropped a note in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#200X in comics. (Emperor 15:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't have a problem with the individual articles listed in 2000s in comics, but with the list itself. I'd say, just make sure the category "2000s comics" or whatever is applied to each of those listed articles, then the 2000s in comics page is no longer necessary. That's really what categories are for, and this article is trying to imitate a category. =Axlq 05:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

TWT

I suggest you remove TWAT from the TWT entry as an acronym as it is virtually never used anymore in vacuum electronics circles by those who research, design, and use these devices. I would consider it archaic since after 15 years in the industry the first time I have ever seen that acronym is in your edit to the Wikipedia entry. Go to ieeexplore.ieee.org and put TWAT in the search box. Nothing. Then put TWTA in the search box, which is the acronym of choice today (Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier). You'll get 100 papers about TWTAs.

Of course it isn't used much anymore; that was the point. However, in my 22 years in the industry (defense-related radar measurements), I heard the term frequently until about the 1990s, and there are sources verifying its use. It's hard for me to justify removing an historical acronym that has verifiable sources. If the article doesn't make it clear that this is an historical term, then certainly it should. =Axlq 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but I'm still not wild about sticking the TWAT acronym in the first paragraph. It's irrelevant today and probably ought to be put more towards the end of the article as a historical footnote, but I'm not going to fight you on it.=Willus

Um... this conversation really belongs on the article's talk page. I don't mind if the mention occurs later in the article; you're correct that it isn't enough of a critical fact to warrant being right up front like that. I just moved it (you could have also; I wouldn't have complained). =Axlq 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is the last I'll post here. You're free to take this whole conversation and cut and paste it into the article's talk page. Thank you for being accomodating. I just didn't feel it was my place to make the change--I wasn't sure how strongly you felt about it. =Willus

Regarding your spam warning on User talk:Mpreter

I believe these were well-intentioned additions by a new user. Please refer to WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Jerry lavoie 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - please see discussions related to level 1 warnings. The wording is written to assume good faith. A warning was necessary however, as a means of conveying information. =Axlq 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. Jerry lavoie 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No Deleting

There is more than enough "proof" that Killer Instinct 3 is rumored to come, this isnt me using a crystal ball, its a page listing all the articles, pages, and hints at the possibility of a KI3

trying to make a page in Wikipedia is frustrating and complex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PseudoKirby (talk • contribs) 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

It certainly is. After reading your article again, I have retracted the deletion prod. =Axlq 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

quick question, how do I submit my article for cleanup? I cant seem to get the organization right, and my writing could be worded better, more encyclopedic PseudoKirby 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just add a {{cleanup}} tag at the top of the article. The presence of that tag will automatically add the article to the category of articles needing cleanup. =Axlq 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Stevia

I just wanted to let you know that I have left an explanation for the edit that you referred to as a "bad bot edit" at Talk:Stevia. Deli nk 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice that the edit you reverted was a pattern of linkspamming. The link seemed OK to me. The real reason I labeled it that way was because I was peeved that there was no explanation for your reversion. Something like "reverted link added by serial spammer" would have helped. =Axlq 06:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to know that the reasoning deleting the information about SweetLeaf Sweetener was false and erroneous. It's all over the news. The press release was on May 21, 2008. SweetLeaf is the market leader in stevia as a dietary supplement and is now the first to receive GRAS certification. And, yes, they beat Coca Cola to the punch. If anything is erroneous it is leaving in Coca Cola and Cargill. I referenced the material on FoxBusiness and in the Arizona Republic. Please before you eliminate entire tracts of information, verify their veracity. Thanks, though, for trying to keep up the high standard. I just think you were wrong here, so I put the info back on.BW1944 (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And I took it out again. A promotional press release does not equate to the FDA actually designating GRAS status. And it still hasn't happened, months later. =Axlq 22:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Axlq for moving and reformatting my stevia discussion points (Self-evident double standards for stevia?). This is exactly what I wanted to do, but am not wiki proficient and couldn't find any 'new entry' button or even if it was appropriate. Now that I know it can be done, I suppose I'd better figure it out...! ..... p.s. Aha! I just discovered the 'new section' tab. D-uh...Krystof (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

pps--My entry in the stevia discussion was deleted by as I have explained below in the new section: "Discussion not welcome on the discussion page?" Krystof (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Infinite bans

Hello Axlq. Well no bans for absent-minded editors such as the above (and myself!). But all anon editors must be banned, as they are the majority of the vandals and abusers. Its okay for the likes of me whose work is on very obscure subjects and usually confined to my home country. Be we have all seen great editors driven away because of abuse of one sort or another. We must take action on this or else Wikipedia will be reduced to utter spam sooner or later. Any thoughts? Fergananim 13:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Radar Cross Section editing

Conversation moved to Talk:Radar cross section#Removal of statement about downtime

Fishes

There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of said project your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Golden ratio

Obviously I understand the relationship between Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio. But I don't see how that make's Tool's use of Fibonacci numbers relevant to the Golden ratio article. This article picks up way to much random cruft, so we have to keep pruning away the irrelevant bits. Try to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Dicklyon 05:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't see how...? And you say you understand the relationship?

I never even heard of Tool before today. I have no clue what their music is like. However, a few simple google searches revealed that the band uses the golden ratio in their music. The fact that the golen ratio can be expressed in Fibonacci numbers doesn't seem like a valid reason to judge any mention of the band as irrelevant cruft. Your denial of encyclopedic inclusions is part of the problem. =Axlq 05:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your text didn't say they use the golden ratio; if they do, and you say so, and the ref verifies it, then it's fine. Just saying they use Fibonacci numbers is not enough. Dicklyon 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - but I'll continue on the article's talk page. =Axlq 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so futile

Thanks for the info about the multiple IP vandal – I've shamelessly pinched the info you gave and put it at WP:ANI#IP spoofing Jerry Falwell / Baptist / Ministry spammer which I should have notified last night, but it was rather past my bedtime. Note that at least one article's been protected to stop the spam advertising a demo, no doubt admins with more knowledge than me will sort this out. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, should have checked more thoroughly first. Too sleepy this weather . :-/ .. dave souza, talk 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for ocean sunfish article

After lots of work on the article, I've nominated ocean sunfish for Featured Article status. I noticed your post at Talk:Ocean sunfish, and thought you might be interested in taking part in the nomination discussion. I hope to see you there! PaladinWhite 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Although, I think you should have nominated it for good article status first, or even a peer review. Peer review is a good way to getting the article up to GA or FA standards, making the GA or FA process smoother. =Axlq 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that so many issues would be brought up with the article, and as Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates reads, "Articles should not be simultaneously nominated here and at peer review or good article candidates," I thought it appropriate to go straight to FA. I'll know better in the future! PaladinWhite 13:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look again at the ocean sunfish page, and add your support to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ocean_sunfish if you believe most concerned are now addressed? I have edited the article extensively to address questions raised in the nomination page. Thanks! Fred Hsu 18:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Fred Hsu 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted pages

You seem to have accidentally recreated a couple of pages that had already been deleted while trying to add a {{db-empty}} tag. You seem to be an experienced user, so I just wanted to let you know that you were overlooking something. BassoProfundo 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Those couple of pages appeared because an anonymous user created talk pages without corresponding articles. I put a speedy tag on the talk pages, then decided it would make more sense to tag the empty articles instead. I didn't exactly recreate the articles; they were already there by virtue of an anon user creating their talk pages.

This seems to be a loophole — Wikipedia requires a registered account to create articles, but it appears anonymous IP addresses can still create talk pages without registering. =Axlq 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the speedy deletion template {{db-talk}} may be what you are looking for. BassoProfundo 01:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I missed seeing that tag somehow. Thanks. =Axlq 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Breaching fish

Yes, I know and might have written a bit unspecific. My point was that I consider both a mola mola and a basking shark as slow moving, heavy fishes, I was surprised when I learned that a basking shark can jump out of the water and would therefore not be all that surprised if a mola mola can do it also, 10 feet yes that is quite a bit. I hope that Tierney Thys will review and add references, she promised me that she would do it over the weekend, I will give her a reminder next week if she does not get back to me, she sounded so positive of helping so I think she will, she just have lots to do. Stefan 06:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Online M.B.A. Programs

I removed the copyright violation. I checked random sentences when I checked for the copyright violation, but must have missed this section. It wasn't a really big section to begin with. Also, that the article's existence came about from the author's conflict of interest is not a reason of course to delete it as a copyvio, hence the proposed deletion. Garion96 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The article's purpose is clearly to advertise the author's site, and after reading the talk page, a copyvio message seemed the best way to go. A prod works too, though. =Axlq 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In Re to Third Opinion

On your comments here:

I would like to know what part of WP:POINT I have been disregarding? David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not any specific part, just the general spirit. I felt, rightly or wrongly, in reading your exchange, that he was trying to explain his good-faith actions in the face of repeated goading (in spite of the fact that his behavior wasn't acceptable). That's a personal impression I got, and I apologize if that impression was mistaken.

I have issued a number of third opinions, but always for a dispute concerning an article, never for a dispute about an editor's behavior. It seemed odd to me that a third opinion was even requested. =Axlq 03:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing wrong with you offering an outside opinion, I just don't see exactly what I did that was against WP:POINT in letter or spirit. Perhaps I could have rewritten "And I'm asking you to desist with the canvassing, lest I have to report you" in a more neutral tone, but in that case I see the problem being with him, not as much me. Whatever though, I'll leave him be. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded further in e-mail. =Axlq (talk)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To =Axlq for exceptional work in the battle against Spam and other nonsense on Wikipedia. --Hu12 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Thanks. I do make mistakes, but we all do our best. =Axlq 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

GREETINGS FROM PORTUGAL

HELLO THERE AXLQ, IT'S VASCO FROM PORTUGAL, user nº217.129.67.28.

Thank you very much for that tip in the RUDOLPH DOUALA (CAMEROON FOOTBALLER) article. I missed the external links which could have been of much use. I am glad you took the time to help in there and i hope we can wiki-meet again one of these days!!!

HAVE A NICE WEEKEND AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL

WP:FLAGCRUFT

Hi. You said "WP:FLAGCRUFT says flags are appropriate in infoboxes" in your edit summary to BAE Systems. I'm having trouble finding where it says that. If you wish to respond would you mind doing so at Talk:BAE Systems, where I have gone into more detail and where others have made comments. Thank you for your time. Mark83 16:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Says it right there near the top, it's appropriate to identify nationality with a flag in an infobox. I have responded in more detail at Talk:BAE Systems. =Axlq 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lung Cancer distribution

You posted on the Lung cancer article
That's a really cool graphic of the distribution of lung cancer in the United States. The moment I saw it, I was hoping to find a discussion about why the highest lung cancer rates seem to be concentrated in the southeastern U.S. and why the lowest seem to be in a wide north-south band just east of the Rocky Mountains. Did anyone ever see any reliable sources that speculate on the reason for the distribution? =Axlq (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that the reason that the lowest rate is in Utah (and surrounding states) is due to the high concentration of Mormons there, specifically due to the LDS belief in the Word of Wisdom, which prohibits tobacco usage (among other things) Regoarrarr (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would explain Utah, but the low rate band spreads a lot farther than that. I can sort of understand the high rates being in tobacco-growing states, but not the overall pattern in the graphic. =Axlq (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You tube links..

It is in general considered bad form to link to video clips whose copryight status cannot be determined, as it could potentialy create issues for the Wikipedia project. Other web-sites HAVE been shut down for merely linking to material whose status was doubtful

In repsect of the specfic clip you mention, it is accepted it's not clear cut. However your suggestion to approach You Tube is laughable, as You Tube (mistakenly IMO) no longer allow third parties to flag videos for possible infringment.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that YouTube doesn't permit third parties to flag videos as possibly infringing. I notice they do let the owner flag as infringing. In that case, take it up with the owner, and if they do nothing, then it's OK. As I learned in the military, non-response equals concurrence.

I'll also point out that copyright status isn't clear-cut for almost all YouTube videos, so I think that argument about "bad form" is bogus. -Axlq (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

meter (poetry)

Hi Axlq,

On 5 Dec 07, I read the article Meter(poetry) and found that it lacked the basic information i sought in a clear, concise manner. I couldn't remember whether the meter form was called Tetrameter or quadrameter, and i expected this page would contain it.

I found it elsewhere, and so I added the succinct info in the section i thought most appropriate:

The term monometer describes verse with one foot per line. Dimeter describes verse with two feet per line. Trimeter describes verse with three feet per line. Tetrameter describes verse with four feet per line. Pentameter describes verse with five feet per line. Hexameter describes verse with six feet per line. Heptameter describes verse with seven feet per line. Octameter describes verse with eight feet per line.

It was later deleted by you, calling it "redundant nonsense". Not sure why, since that info isn't given clearly elsewhere on the page (there's a lot of rambling examples, and a lot of discussion of poetic theory-- but nothing about forms of poetic meter itself). Just wondering your reasons.

I'd love to add the info to the page, as i believe people would find this fundamental knowledge rather essential to the discussion and understanding of poetic meter. After all, I came to to the page seeking the info, couldn't find it, and after finding my answer, used the info to improve the page. Jgoldschmidt (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone in my edit commentary. I called it redundant because the prefixes mono, di, tri, tetra, etc. are common on other words, their meaning is obvious, and listing them exhaustively is redundant and obvious. Only two or three examples are necessary. That, plus the fact that there was no source indicating that these terms are used in poetry (if they're obscure there's no need to include them), caused me to delete the section. =Axlq 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bubblegum worldwide popularity

On the bubblegum page you deleted this section. I was wondering if you could comment on why you did it, and changes you might suggest that might make it a bit more "edit-resistant."

Thanks.

User Bgumaly 12/11/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.53.255 (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was written in a rather non-neutral, hyped, and conversational tone, like an editorial on an opinion page rather than an article in an encyclopedia, and it made claims that were unsourced. =Axlq (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ass to mouth

Please read WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look up the meaning of "contentious". There isn't any contention concerning particular porn stars mentioned. Please don't mis-apply Wikipedia policies. =Axlq (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Paleolithic style diet

Thanks for your help Axlq! I was wandering if some criticisms I added in the "criticism" section are "original research" in the form of a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this matter (see discussion page). Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the job you did. I'm looking the article over and I have some minor concerns, but I'll post them on the article's talk page. =Axlq (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've responded to your constructive comments on the discussion page. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to your help, this article has been promoted to good article status! Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Shucks, all I did was criticise it a bit. Anyway, congratulations. =Axlq (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Axlq, User:69.47.110.119 has done it again--he/she has vandalised Blue's Clues--again! You might want to think about a permanent block. Have you seen this user's contribution list?[1] He/she has a particular thing for this particular article. Man, what did Blue ever do to him/her? --Figureskatingfan (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I don't block. Also, a permanent block is unlikely for an anonymous IP address. In any case, no vandalism from that IP address has occurred since you wrote the note above. =Axlq (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Toolong

Hey there, I noticed you added a toolong template to Paleolithic-style diet, but can't figure why, the lead guidelines say for an article over 30,000 characters (which this article is), 3-4 paragraphs should be used in the lead. What was your reason for (reluctantly) adding the template? Murderbike (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning is explained at Talk:Paleolithic-style diet#Successful GA nom, as well as suggestion for improvement. Basically the lead has more detail than it needs compared to the actual text of the article (not counting the voluminous text in the references). =Axlq (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. I see it is under 30,000 characters.

Murderbike (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Werdnawerdna

The paragraph I typed in the article Virgin birth of Jesus is 100% proved, scientific fact. I don't know what kind of proof you believe I need to show - please inform me. Every scientist, doctor, historian etc could tell you the same thing as I wrote. The rest of the article reads like a fundamentalist Christian creationist's preachings from the altar. Most of the rest of it is not written in anything like from a neutral point of view. My paragraph of facts is necessary to balance the article; to tell the truth and to counter the propaganda that forms the bulk of the article. I have stated only solid facts, not any mere opinions. What I typed is just as true as irrefutable statements such as: "cheetahs run fast", "Antarctica is cold"; "the Earth orbits the Sun". If you really feel that I've not written it using acceptable wording, then please advise me as to which word(s) I need to change to make my paragraph a permanent part of the Virgin birth of Jesus article. The truth needs to be told - this isn't Conservapedia!

Werdnawerdna (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy of no original research. This policy isn't negotiable, and has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with what you wrote (and I happen to like what you wrote). The fact is, we shouldn't write text, especially potentially controversial text, without also including a citation to a source that complies with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and reliable source guidelines.

That's the difference between Wikipedia and Conservopedia. Conservopedia is free to have lower standards of evidence and attribution in what they write. Wikipedia has higher standards, so you can't just write whatever you feel is correct without citing a source. =Axlq (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

smile

Calus (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you, Calus. What did I do to deserve a smile from you? =Axlq (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Marmaris Hotels Guide

This conversation has been moved to User talk:Dr.Fix and later to Talk:Marmaris#Third opinion. =Axlq (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazon Kindle

I noticed you removed the link to the "Various undocumented/underdocumented abilities of the Kindle", with the comment: "deleted blog site per WP:EL" That article states that blogs (among other items) are to be avoided "[e]xcept for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject". Since this was a link to a blog post that offers further information on the device, I disagree with its removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoone (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, but the link fails. Blogs about a subject are unacceptable unless the blog is an official blog on that subject (such as a blog run by the person who is the subject of a biography article). Unofficial blogs also fail WP:RS as well as WP:EL. =Axlq 06:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Bathroom fly

Xlnt! I learned something, too. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Searl Effect Generator

Thank you very much for your the reversal of the recent edit at Searl_Effect_Generator. Since i'm not that good arguing, and since i am not that familiar with all of the wikipedia rules, i did not response/undo again but decided to leave it as is. Your help is very much appreciated. Greetings, Chris --213.160.11.146 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

About link to freehospital.org

Could you do us a favour and please explain why TradeDoubler is knows as a spyware site? Containing tracking cookies is not spyware. But please inform us as we value your opinion on this Axlq. We have a better article that wikipedia on Lung Cancer on freehospital.org. Anyway feel free to criticize us as we need your opinions. We are an organization in it's initial stages taking action to promote global health free of charge in a responsible way. We know Wikipedia did a great job. Infact we have been watching wikipedia since 2004 before it got famous so please don't misunderstand us. Wikipedia is a heaven of information. Thank you Axlq.

p.s. Sorry for the inappropriate placement of this message... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.247.247.65 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

TradeDoubler triggers my spyware detector. Such sites aren't appropriate for Wikipedia.

Ad-supported sites aren't appropriate either. Why even have links to tradedoubler?

Also, you should never add your own site to articles on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:External links for guidance. =Axlq 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question re Regexp for penisenlarge

is this possible to do? Will it take in accout hyphened additions? You seem to be great a regex, I'll be happy to add it--Hu12 (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my suggested regexp of penis-*enlarge[-A-Za-z0-9]*\.[a-z]{2,4} would catch penis-enlargement-scams.info too. The characters -* in the expression mean "0 or more hyphens" and [-A-Za-z0-9]* means "a string of zero or more characters containing hyphens and/or alphanumeric characters" while the last bit [a-z]{2-4} means "a string of two to four alphabet characters". That last part could also be [A-Za-z]{2-4} in case Wikipedia uses a case-sensitive match, and the spammer uses uppercase characters.

I am by no means an expert, and I'm assuming egrep syntax is at work here. If Wikipedia is using Perl syntax for regular expressions, what I suggested may not work (I'm unfamiliar with Perl; I only know it's somewhat different).

The danger to these expressions, of course, is that it may catch legitimate sites. At first I thought penis-enlargement-scams.info might be a legitimate consumer-alert site, until I actually looked at it. =Axlq 20:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if I add \bpenis-*enlarge[-A-Za-z0-9]*\.[a-z]{2,4}\b, it won't crash wikipedia? LOL. Lets test it?--Hu12 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It should work, if Wikipedia uses the syntax I think it uses. It should be easy to test. For example, it shouldn't trigger on URLs having just the word "penis" or "enlarge" in them, it should trigger only if both strings are present. =Axlq 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Added. See if the usual suspects add to those articles.--Hu12 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[2] should work anywhere on the project..hmm--Hu12 (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that the regular expression syntax used here is different that what I expected. Do you know of anywhere it's documented? I believe Wikipedia uses PHP scripts for most things, and what I suggested agrees with the PHP documentation for pattern syntax. It's possible that Wikipedia is using its own rules. =Axlq 18:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't think it is any different.. however I'm not sure if Extension:SpamBlacklist, $wgSpamRegex, or Manual:$wgSpamRegex is of any help? BTW this (from here) was added to the global BL. thanks again--Hu12 (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Those links were helpful, and highlighted one possible problem. Try adding a \ in front of the hyphen in brackets, as in \bpenis-*enlarge[0-9a-z\-]*\.[a-z]{2,4}\b. =Axlq 05:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked it..didn't take ..threw some variation in there, none triggered the filter--Hu12 (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this may be a bug. It isn't working as documented.

I'm pretty sure that the * wildcard should work (it means 0 or more occurrences of the previous character). So let's try eliminating more obscure usages. Take out the {2,4} and see what happens. All that does is trigger on any 2- to 4-character string after the dot; taking it out will trigger on a single alpha character after the dot, which is fine also.

It may also be the case that the MediaWiki spam blacklist isn't actually triggering on regular expressions, but simple strings. =Axlq 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, oh well.. LOL. --Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Chamonix/Les Houches

Hi Axlq. My link to my Chamonix blog (ie. Les Houches and Chamonix pages) was deleted. Sorry, I hadn't read the guidelines on not linking out to blogs and my links seemed less spammy and more relevant than the ones present - which you have now edited. However, it is primarily a news and events blog about the Chamonix valley and fulfills these criteria:

• Is it accessible to the reader?
• Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
• Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

Each link should be considered on its merits, using the above guidelines. I live in Les Houches in the Chamonix valley and although it is a blog link [Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.] I would consider it to be an informative and useful link, and as a long term resident of the valley an authoity on Chamonix. I could understand the decision although the following external link remains http://www.les-praz-de-chamonix.com/ to what is essentially a blog and an advert for Chalet La Foret and is certainly less informative for the average viewer of the Chamonix page than my news site. Sorry for mucking you around, had I taken the time to read the guideliners in the first place I wouldn't have added the link to my main site on the Les Houches page in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.81.167.31 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you don't get to pick and choose the bits of WP:EL that appear to allow certain links. The document is quite clear that links to blogs are to be avoided, except in cases where the blog is written by a recognized authority.

If I missed one, then certainly it should be deleted as well. I have just done so.

And, I have once again deleted your blog link. Please do not re-add it to Wikipedia articles. Doing so will result in you being blocked, and the link may get blacklisted as well. =Axlq 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No probs, thanks for the clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.81.167.31 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I found this conversation via Google and would just like to query this. les-praz-de-chamonix.com is my site, and I don't think it's really a blog, though it is made in Wordpress. I was pleased to see it added to wikipedia, and sorry to see it go.

There isn't any information on Les Praz online, which was why I made it. It has one advert (guidelines say " sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" are unsuitable - and I happily include links and photos of places that are in competition - on the first page alone there's two hotels. It's not a commercial site. Visitors from Wikipedia usually had a good look around the site and appeared to find it useful. Is it the format that's the problem, or the one advert? Or perhaps it would be better on the Les Praz page? Thanks in advance for your time, and feel free to move this comment if this is not the right place to post it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.150.98 (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't an official site, it's your personal site about the area, and therefore can't be considered authoritative. Wikipedia requires us to link to reliable and verifiable sites. I do like it, though. I wouldn't object if you made a gallery of pictures and linked to that. =Axlq 04:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Axlq, thanks very much for taking the time to explain, and also for the kind comments on the site! OK, I see what you mean now. I do have a photo section http://www.les-praz-de-chamonix.com/category/photos/ so maybe if there's a suitable place, we could add that? Or does it need to be a completely separate gallery? Thanks again, Martha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.150.98 (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright response

I left you a response to your question at WT:IFD, I hope it helps.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop harassing me

This is my page to blank. Go read Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments and stop harassing me.

• "Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user, regardless of if the talk page is for a registered or unregistered "anonymous" editor." 99.240.27.210 (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't have an account. You have an anonymous IP address. Therefore, it is not your talk page. That page exists as a record to administrators of infractions and other activity of you and others using the same IP address.

Unless you can show that you are, and always will be, the sole user of that particular IP address, the assumption is that it isn't yours, and that blanking the talk page is merely an attempt to hide records of past activity.

If you want your own user talk page, establish a real account. =Axlq 04:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

regardless of if the talk page is for a registered or unregistered "anonymous" editor. It's none of your business what I do with my IP address or whether I get an account. If you persist I might get an account to report you though. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps you should learn the difference between official policies and guidelines, versus essays such as Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. You clearly didn't read the discussion (especially the last section) going along with that article. Consensus about that essay is still very far off, particularly about anonymous IP talk pages. =Axlq 05:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't even cited a policy, let alone an essay. Why not? Oh, because there is no policy that forbids anonymous users to blank their talk page, is there. Well then, this discussion is over. My advice to you would be to stick to editing and stop humoring yourself with the false prospect of authority by dictating made up rules to other users. Have a good day. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And the guideline WP:BLANKING repeats this by the way: Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Just FYI. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally quoting a policy; I just found that one myself and was about to offer an apology when I saw your reply. I won't restore the warnings on your talk page until such time as it seems appropriate if your IP address is used for vandalism or other inappropriate behavior. Good day. =Axlq 05:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-frogman techniques

To try to change the current editing disagreement from an edit war to a discussion, see Talk:Anti-frogman techniques#Whether to include links to manufacturers' websites. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have written a response there. =Axlq 16:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unwelcome help

While I appreciate the intent, please don't try to "help" by posting messages in my behalf when I describe an incident to you. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Your reverts looked okay, so I've granted you rollback. Just remember, however, that rollback should only be used to revert obvious vandalism/spam, and should not be used to revert good-faith edits or to revert war with other users. Misuse will lead to the tool being revoked. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Best wishes. Acalamari 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I intend to use rollback only to revert multiple vandal edits in one action, or to revert vandalism that is happening too rapidly for the usual "undo" operation. For most cases, I prefer "undo" because I can tailor the edit summaries. =Axlq 20:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Please be aware that Booz Allen split off its management consulting practice which is now known as Booz & Company. I do not understand why changing articles to reflect this is vandalism. Please clarify for me. Thank you.70.174.189.60 (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical events that happened while the company was called Booz Allen Hamilton should retain the name. In particular, the management consulting article says that Booz Allen Hamilton was founded by Edwin Booz. That is a true statement, and doesn't have to change because the company split into two parts. I noticed you changed the name in several other articles, but I left them alone, because as far as I could tell, the sentences you affected weren't referring to history. =Axlq 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet

Hi Axlq, nice to see you're still watching the article. I explained my reasons for the revert on Warren Dew's talk page (User talk:Warren Dew#Paleolithic diet). Cheers. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. =Axlq 04:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm responding on the article talk page. Warren Dew (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussions are not welcome on discussion pages?

Axlq helped me to format my comments on the 'stevia' discussion page, but then Blechnic deleted the whole thing, saying: (I reverted the additions which amount to the user using this page as his/her personal WP:SOAPBOX on the topic; rephrase any questions about the article you have, leave your essay out. Thx.)

My entry did not have any external references or self promotion in any way.

I can understand if the 'discussion' pages are considered only for concise discussions to help editorial decisions? If so, my mistake. Hopefully the somewhat looney entries which are not even signed will eventually be deleted as well. I.e., the Wikipedia is for the Wikipedia and not for 'open discussion.' I can respect that and I only became discussive because I saw the 'discussion' tab and thought I would join in.

If Axlq happens to recall my entry ("Self-evident double standards for stevia?"), then perhaps he can reassure me that Blechnic's deletion was normal. In any case, the Wikipedia is perhaps not the place for such discussions simply because anybody feels free to delete them. Krystof (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Stevia -- Wikipedia is not a doctor's office, but apparently you want to make it one

There's no way you even read that, or you have some alternative motive for allowing her recipes and medical advice to stay on Wikipedia article talk space. It's on you. Wikipedia is not a doctor's office. --Blechnic (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, now. Assume good faith (which you are not doing) and don't bite the newbies (which you did to Krystof). Yes, Krystof added a bunch of unnecessary text, and I challenged it here and there, but there was also an undertone of desire to effect changes to the article, which you evidently failed to notice. I apologize for my earlier edit summary; I thought I restored the version that didn't contain the test starting "As a rule there are always some people who are allergic to any natural substance." But no harm now; Krystof has reverted the stuff added before. =Axlq 05:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No more concern, the user more eloquently pointed out my failure to assume good faith by taking the high ground. The editor has removed the content with the intention of rewriting to make it relate to the article. --Blechnic (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To Blechnic: I am inexperienced with Wikipedia. You go a bit far to say I was making the Wikipedia a doctor's office. Also please note I did nothing at all to the main article. Nonetheless after following your reference for what Wikipedia considers 'soapboxing', and that this clearly includes the 'discussion' pages, I fully respect your reasons for deleting my section. Axlq mostly restored the section, evidently feeling that I had some pertinent suggestions. I think he might be correct, though frankly I am now quite unsure myself. I will attempt to re-write everything to focus on brevity and relevance, per the Wiki guidelines. If you still label it as 'soapboxing', be assured that I will be consequently discouraged from further activity... Krystof (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just omit your opinions and personal experiences and it should be fine. --Blechnic (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Blechnic. I consider it fortunate for everyone including me that you and Axlq so quickly deleted and criticized my broad discussion, for which this wiki is evidently not designed. Krystof (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

electronic portfolio

Discussion moved to Talk:Electronic portfolio#Lists of external links

Bubblegum

I agree with your changes to Standard American English for this article. You are invited to Request for Comment on the article talk page. Thanks, 76.171.171.194 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment. =Axlq 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Axlq, for God's sake, thank you, MigraineNonElation (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (The shortest way out of a migraine is common sense and the proper application of logic.)

Um, what...? You're welcome, I guess. =Axlq 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That is to say, you made sense. Your discussion is well-structured is rational. What a relief. MigraineNonElation (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. It seemed like a no-brainer to me, well-supported by the Wikipedia guidelines. I don't understand why this would generate such controversy on Talk:Bubblegum. =Axlq 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't myself. But there you have it, thank you so much, MigraineNonElation (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian cuisine

I have provided an explanation in the edit summary for removing an image which was previously added by me. Hope it makes sense. Cheers --Enigma Blues (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally I preferred the lobster picture. I see so little seafood in Indian cuisine that the lobster picture looked more worthwhile to keep from a "notability" standpoint. In any case, I won't revert again now that you have explained it.

In the future, please remember to use edit summaries. Many editors routinely revert unexplained changes, especially changes that remove cited references. Also, try to clean up the peacock terms in the article. I have done so for the caption of the picture you added. =Axlq 18:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was concerned about peacock terms too. Frankly, I can't see how Idli being "one of the most famous dishes from southern India" is a peacock term when it actually is one of the most widely eaten south Indian dishes, if not the most. Anyways, the current caption is fine. Regarding the lobster image, I initially added the image as it would reflect the diversity of Indian cuisine. But then the section was on Southern Indian cuisine and in my opinion, that particular dish was not as representative of southern Indian cuisine as Idli is. And thanks for the advice on edit summaries. I'll keep that in mind. --Enigma Blues (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Famous" is a peacock term compared to "widely known". I agree about diversity with respect to the lobster image, but I also agree the current picture is more representative. I have always been somewhat perturbed that Indian restaurants here in the United States never have seafood on the menu. Even in the "southern cuisine" restaurants that favor rice over naan, if it isn't vegetarian, meat is either lamb or chicken. =Axlq 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken regarding "famous" being a peacock term. Actually southern Indian cuisine is pretty diverse too. However, if you want to try good Indian seafood, Goan cuisine and Bengali cuisine come to mind. I was actually looking for images on Bengali fish curries but couldn't find any free images on them. --Enigma Blues (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Peace Barnstar
		for taking the last dispute on WP:3 that nobody seemed to want! Well done You! fr33kman -s- 05:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although my opinion on Talk:Arran#Thirds opinion wasn't "peaceful". Looking back, it has an impatient tone. =Axlq 14:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but at least you recognized it which gives you the opportunity to learn. Sometimes, a firm hand is needed. Would you be interested in a new proposal for new mediator education that I'm working on and hope to propose to WP:3 and WP:MEDCAB for new dispute resolvers. I have a draft version that I've begun working on; User:Fr33kman/New mediator school. :-) fr33kman -s- 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Skyler Samuels

I have changed the db-bio on this article not because I disagree with your reasoning, but because there is some judgement call involved in whether or not the article asserts notability (I don't think it does, someone else might). I have added the db-repost because it clearly does not address the concerns in the AfD. Thanks. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the db-repost tag. The db-bio tag was the closest one I could think of that was appropriate. =Axlq 15:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Shonen Jump GA Review

Hi, just wanted to see if I'd adequately addressed the issues you noted in your GA review of Shonen Jump? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had planned to pass it this last weekend, but things got in the way. I'll get to it this evening. =Axlq 01:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

In September you commented on a non-consensus move of the article Indian cuisine to its current name Cuisine of India. There is currently a discussion to return the article to its former name. I would like to invite you to comment on the proposal which is listed here. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Alignment (D&D)

Actually I added this part to the discussion in the proper section: I removed Al Swearengen from the Deadwood TV show as example for Chaotic Neutral, as he for examples orders an innocent child to be murdered in s01e02. Just one example of many possibles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.137.86 (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.137.86 (talk)

It doesn't really matter; the point is that the source describes the character that way, and the article reports that. The article doesn't take a position on what Al Swearengen's alignment actually is. Our own opinions on the alignment of other fictional characters are irrelevant; all that matters for the purposes of Wikipedia is what the authoritative sources say. =Axlq 19:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi there! I've been going through the New Pages log, particularly the back end of it. I've come across an article (James Chater) that you've added a tag to that hasn't been patrolled. I was wondering if you could make sure that you mark an article as patrolled before you tag it as then it won't show up on the list, which will save people patrolling an article that has already been looked at by an experienced editor like yourself.

Please accept my apologies if you are doing this and the software is lagging behind, or if you're just tagging articles that you're coming across from a different source that doesn't allow you to patrol them. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 08:07, January 2009 (UTC)

How did your signature get tagged as October 2008?

I don't remember if I had come to James Chater via the New Pages list or not.

Anyway, I have noticed that sometimes when I edit an article, it no longer appears as unpatrolled. I assummed that the act of someone other than the author editing it results in the unpatrolled flag being set to patrolled. I guess that's wrong. Thanks for the heads up. =Axlq 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the sig, i'll have to check my little message template, i expect i made a mistake somehow! I've corrected the date in the message above. Anyway, as I understand it, when you edit an article from the New Page patrol, the little patrol link at the bottom disappears, but the article isn't actually patrolled. --Ged UK (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it's impossible to mark a page as patrolled after I make an edit.

This looks like a bug. When a new article is created, its status should be unpatrolled. Another editor can come along and either mark the page as patrolled, or make an improvement to the page. Either action should change the status to patrolled. The page should not remain unpatrolled after 2 or more editors have modified it. =Axlq 17:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found that even after an edit, I can use the back button to take me to before my edit, and mark as patrolled from there. I'm also trying to get a bot going that will check whether a page is tagged with a variety of tags and then mark it as patrolled. I must get that going soon! --Ged UK (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be even better if the bot looked at the page's edit history and marks it as patrolled if at least two different established editors (not anonymous editors or bots) have made changes. =Axlq 03:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please review an External Link so that I might benefit from this process

I noticed your edits to the GMAT entry on wikipedia and I am requesting that review a proposed link. The link has been proposed in the discussion under Need History of the GMAT. I have noticed that you explain why a link is not suitable in some detail, and if the link is not suitable I would like just such an explanation so that I might benefit from participating in wikipedia.

OhnoitsJamie has suggested it is not suitable but his explanation on my Talk page was "I do not believe it's appropriate, hence its removal." In other words, Ohnoitsjamie appears to be more focused on his opinion than the wikipedia guidelines. Any reference ohnoitsjamie has made to the guidelines has been very broad citing the entire guideline (e.g. Reliable Sources), without saying how this material is unreliable. Thanks.Michaelbirdsall (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

While it's an interesting web site, it seems more or less self-published, and I can't see why it would be considered an authoritative source for historical information. =Axlq 03:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Entry: Stacy Blackman

Hi Axlq, I just added a piece of information into the entry of Stacy Blackman, which you deleted instantly. i don't understand, why this info got deleted. It shows that Stacy is not just known in the US but in the European MBA-Scene as well. Would be great to get your perspective on it.

Thanks, Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.225.233 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant to delete only the external link you added. The world is full of MBA program directories, and there is no reason why Wikipedia should highlight your preferred one over any other. After I deleted your link from the MBA article, I went over to Stacy Blackman and reverted your edits there, not realizing that you had done more than add a link. After looking at what else you added, I still feel that it's inappropriate to highlight this web site, whether it be in a link or in the article text. Please review the Wikipedia:External links guidelines. Thanks. =Axlq 01:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. No offence, but if you are saying yourself that you (kind of) started reverting anything I did - even without reading my full entry - based on *one* entry you deemed unimportant, makes me question your good intentions a bit. However, I will review the external links chapter again, although I tried to make myself familiar with it before I primarily posted. And just for your better understanding: MBA Channel is a free service provided by qualified and serious journalists who are well-known in the MBA sphere and work for mayor news magazines. Only because these people aren't known to anybody it doesn't mean their work is not mentionable. Also, our authors like Stacy Blackman and Bärbel Schwertfeger do have Wiki-entries for example. So long. Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.232.134 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken, but understand this: When an anonymous IP address adds an inappropriate link to one article, and that same IP address has done nothing but add that same link to other articles, that behavior indicates an attempt to advertise rather than contribute content, and the edits are quickly reverted (and not just by me). Had you done it a couple more times, you would have been blocked.

There are many free MBA information services. After looking over the site, I don't see any reason why that one should be highlighted on Wikipedia versus any other. I'm just not seeing how this site is notable; just because it happened to publish the writings of Ms. Blackman doesn't confer notability on that site. Also, if you are associated with MBA Channel, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting web sites. =Axlq 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert Young (author) page

I just wanted to let you know that I posted some issues about the "microscopy" paragraph on the Robert Young (author) discussion page and would very much appreciate your input on the matter. Respectfully, Honest Research (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on drafting up a new version of the "Nutritional Microscopy" paragraph tomorrow so if you have an opinion on the issues being debated it would be great to post it on the discussion page by tomorrow. Respectfully, Honest Research (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Family matters have prevented me from participating on Wikipedia lately, but I am following the discussion. =Axlq 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Petition for Feedback

In the past, you have been a key contributor on the Robert Young (author) page. I recently posted some statements on the discussion page for contributor feedback. The goal for these recent statements is to give a synopsis of the primary content found in Young's books. I am not sure if you have seen the latest draft I posted. I do not want to post anything in the article until I have full approval from the other contributors like yourself. So I am writing to ask your opinion on the matter and support so that a representation of the content found in Young's books can be included in some form or another in his article. Side note - this may come up so I will explain my reasoning now: I referenced his blog a few times because he seems to sum up the bulk of the content found in his books in his blog called Articles of Health. If that is unacceptable then I can reference the same content from his books. Respectfully, Honest Research (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sunrider and stevia

re: Sunrider and stevia. You are incorrect that the documents do not support that Sunrider "successfully petitioned the FDA to sell stevia in 1995." The 2 FDA documents show that Sunrider successfully petitioned the FDA to being selling stevia. Search for "Sunrider" in "New Dietary Ingredients in Dietary Supplements - Background for Industry" at http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/ucm109764.htm, and you'll see that Sunrider was the first company to request permission to sell that ingredient. There are dozens of other ingredients/companies listed there- they're all the first to request such permission. Pages 2-3 of the Food and Drug Administration Memorandum http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/DOCKETS/DOCKETS/95s0316/m000002.pdf explain that Sunrider petitioned to sell stevia and the FDA is approving this. More info is at pages 6, 7, and 10-15. Take a few minutes and read these, and you will see that these are facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.193.141 (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources you cited don't support your claim that (a) the petition was successful -- the source doesn't indicate that it was, it merely acknowledges the petition; and (b) that Sunrider's petition specifically was what caused the FDA to change its stance about stevia. That last point you are trying to make violates the policy WP:SYN. =Axlq 21:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Added 5 non-Sunrider documents that clearly state that Sunrider successfully petitioned the FDA to allow the sale of Sunrider as a dietary supplement in 1996. See them at: Talk:Sunrider. Please let me know if for some reason these do not neutrally support the position that Sunrider is responsible obtaining FDA permission to sell stevia as a dietary supplement in the US; I have a copy of a 1996 magazine I can scan/upload. (User_talk:76.166.193.141)

wind

you do not own the article either. do not remove image without consensus.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the image the same way you added it. There are far better images available on Commons that portray the subject. =Axlq 15:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it after at least one other user agreed while you are removing it at your own will.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I think it's a beautiful photograph. I would love to have had such a shot in my own wedding album. However, since it's your picture, you have a certain conflict of interest about it. I happen find it inappropriate for the wind article. Another editor didn't, but that editor has not seen the alternatives on Commons, as I have.

As I said, I will remove it the same way you added it - by gaining consensus. I suggest you find a more appropriate article for that image, such as Chinese wedding album (which needs a picture) or wedding photography. =Axlq 03:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Moths

Discussion moved to Talk:Moth (dinghy)

Premature ejaculation

Re: link to the Premature Ejaculation test. Dear, I'm an expert in this feild and I can tell you that this link to the test is extremely essential and could help many sufferers in defining there condition. If the body of the article is no right, would you put it on external links? I would be happy to discuss this issue with you in details. Best Regards, Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.20.96 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is really nothing to discuss, and your expertise in the field isn't relevant if all you want to do is add an external link. There is no external link that is "extremely essential" to any article on Wikipedia. Please read the official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and especially review the part that says Wikipedia isn't a repository of external links, and Wikipedia isn't an advice guide. Your link also doesn't comply with Wikipedia:External links (for one thing, it requires registration), so there is no appropriate place for it in the article. Also, since this is apparently your link, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. =Axlq 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)