User talk:Ragesoss/Archive6

Rachel Carson

Thanks for stepping in. I TOTALLY agree that "none of this is helpful." I only put that admittedly ridiculous line "(who also dispute the Scientific consensus on climate change)" in there to make a point. I agree it's garbage, as is the rest of the stuff you sliced out. Yilloslime 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Emile Zuckerkandl

On 2 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emile Zuckerkandl, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 01:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Burrowing Owl

Your comment to the FIC on Burrowing Owl almost made me spit my water up through my nose! I answered your quert there if you care to look...User:Wsiegmund has also used his software to edit the Burrowing Owl shot I took...if you care to take another peek.[1]--MONGO 05:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

I saw you formatting the images on History of biology (I put it on my watchlist for vandalism), what does that "upright" do? Quadzilla99 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ty. Quadzilla99 21:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Biochem cat sorting

I was just opening Activity based proteomics for cat sorting, and its Category:Biochemistry cat changed before my eyes - you'd beat me to it. :-) Thanks for helping to shovel out this overloaded cat. And you've created Category:Biochemistry methods too, excellent idea. Clicketyclack 05:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Astronomy myths

Hi Ragesoss,

I've been getting increasingly frustrated by the claims on some articles related to history of astronomy that seek to make non-westerm scholars more "modern" than they were, as if giving them points for beating European scholars to specific discoveries is a way to increase their stature, and as if European scholars have been wrongfully given credit for non-western achievements.

I began to dig up sources for some of the issues that concern me, and it grew into something that I plan to drop on the History of astronomy talk page.

I don't want it to come across as too heavy so would you take a look at the introductory section and, if it needs changes, feel free to edit it where it can be improved.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert Crampton

You just deleted this article by CSD. Not really clear that it was such a speedy, but maybe you saw why...I was trying to source it: [2] [3]

Can you explain your rationale: "not so much a stub as a fag end. A soggy fag end, floating in a trough"?

—Gaff ^ταλκ 06:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries... it just threw me for a loop because I thought it might be salvageable. Keep up the good work! —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Biblical proportions

Lol! Thank you. :-).

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007

The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of "common misperceptions" in the History of astronomy

Ragesoss

Would you add something like the following to the next newsletter (or if there's an appropriate place, post it on the HoS Wikiproject page):

A discussion of the role of modern scientific concerns in the selection of topics and evidence (Whig history) in articles concerning the early History of astronomy and of the role of that selection in the perpetuation of common misconceptions is going on at Talk:History of astronomy#common misconceptions. Contributions to the discussion are welcome.

Thanks for all the effort. --SteveMcCluskey 15:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

This section was getting so big that I gave it it's own page: Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions. SteveMcCluskey 23:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Thanks Sage, for your note of support at my RfA. My admiration for your own approach to the initiation rite that the RfA is becoming, has never been greater. Shyamal 15:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Do you know how to make redirects? I was thinking that naturalist should automatically redirect to natural history the way theologian redirects to theology. That is by far the most common usage. Awadewit | talk 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 20

Good news, everyone: Wikipedia Weekly Episode 20 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/06/19/wikipedia-weekly-20-return-of-the-podcast/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

DYK

On 25 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of molecular evolution, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving page

Are you still planning to move the sndbox page as you said on the MfD? I think that would be at least a partial solution to its problems, for the record. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My fault - I should have checked that. There is also Wikipedia:Sandbox/Wikistory; are you willing to move that one as well? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Trump Tower Tampa

Can you explain this edit]. It seems we want something there if the building exists or is planned.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it is still on [4], [5]. What are your sources that it is dead?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how {{prod}}, page deletion, page recreation, etc. are accounted for in {{ArticleHistory}}, but I can't easily figure out what has gone on with this page other than that it is currently surviving an WP:AFD. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have update the talk page to reflect our discussions on the prod.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot

Would you mind commenting at the CFD for "Members of the Lunary Society". As you know something about this period in the history of science, we could use your thoughts. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Silent Spring

Hi,

This article was nominated for GA. I reviewed it and placed comments some time ago. There's been no activity since then. Would you be interested in responding to them? Regards, AshLin 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Silent Spring

A reviewer has commented on the article. Since I never read this book (I only heard of it during a bio lecture), can you improve the article according to reviewer's comments? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 10:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cluestick

A chrome plated cluestick to Ragesoss, who definitely has a clue. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at the Signpost tip line was very sharp. Kudos! Durova^Charge! 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium piece

I expect Ral315 to be back publishing this week, but we tend to see eye-to-eye on most things. I appreciate your effort in putting this together and definitely think it would be worthwhile to run. I don't have any objection in principle to carrying a response from the other side, as this would address the balance issue with the Signpost being Wikipedia-oriented, and leave you a little more liberty to draw conclusions from your reporting. From my observation, Mike seems like a good candidate to write such a response if he's willing. If it's needed, since the subject matter is not absolutely time-sensitive, we could even hold off publishing until the following week and allow both of you more time to develop your pieces. --Michael Snow 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael said it better than I could. I'll be publishing this week; if he's interested in doing so, I see no problem in doing this, and as Michael said, if Mike needs a few days to work on this, we can run both pieces next week. Ral315 » 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sage, thanks again for organizing the invitation to write a response to your article. --Johnsonmx 10:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article, man. The response only strengthened by belief that Wikipedia is far better than Citizendium. When I see the words "government" and "wiki" on the same sentence, I tend to laugh in disbelief. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FDA Conspiracy Theory deletion

Hello... I would like to discuss your deletion fo the article "FDA conspiracy theory," as I am the original author. I'm not sure what the article contained at the time you deleted it, but when I wrote it, it did not contain any BS, nor any original research. Unfortunately, I didn't login between the time the AfD was issued and the actual deletion. I would greatly appreciate it if you would (briefly) let me know why it was deleted. Furthermore, I would appreciate a chance to improve the article before it is re-deleted. Thanks. ZZYZX 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sage,

Thanks for restoring the deleted page to my userspace. You know, I only objected to the deletion because there are articles that link to "FDA Conspiracy Theory" that now have no place to go. I'd be happy to have the name "FDA Conspiracy Theory" redirected to the "Criticisms of the FDA" article - since it is clearly a better article than what I wrote. Do you think that would work for you?

BTW, I didn't have any references because I can't bring myself to purchase a book by the people who promote that theory (and by purchasing, give money to them). I've also enjoyed reading your page. I, too, am a chemistry major. People don't understand why I always want to discuss chemistry, but I guess I see the world through the eyes of a chemist. In fact, most of the articles I've authored relate to chemistry in one form or another. ZZYZX 07:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a redirect page from "FDA Conspiracy Theory" to "Criticism of the FDA"... ZZYZX 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification

Just a super quick note, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 21 is out and can be downloaded at the usual places (if you've forgotten, WikipediaWeekly.com works wonders. -- Tawkerbot 01:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

List of people known as the father or mother of something

I don't really care whether this is deleted or restored, but I do care about red links to deleted articles. In the case of list of people known as the father or mother of something, you undeleted the page but not its talk page or the multiple former redirects. See the list of redirects and other related items that were deleted (the link won't always work but this is approximately the right place). I am mentioning this because I have just removed a number of links that went to List of people known as the father or mother of something, thinking that the article had been deleted for good when in fact all that happened was the redirect was deleted. I will clean up after myself of course but I think the old redirects should also be undeleted for attribution; for example List of people known as the father or mother of something was a former title of the article. Graham87 11:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that restoration absent a DRV discussion was the best idea here (although the AfD closure seems to have been erroneous, and although I almost certainly would !vote overturn [hence, keep] at DRV, closures made in good faith should not generally be overturned unilaterally, lest wheel warring should ensue), although I recognize that it is quite likely that a consensus would develop at DRV for overturning deletion. In any case, the restored article was tagged for {{db-repost}} by Otto4711 inasmuch as it had been deleted pursuant to an AfD, and I've just now removed the tag with the suggestion that the issue be taken to DRV, with the provision that I'll not object further should the tag be re-added. I'm inclined to suggest that you redelete the article (preserving, if you should like, the history) and then raise the issue at DRV, but I write only to apprise of the article's having been tagged as G4 in order that you might address the issue however you choose. Cheers, Joe 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Swan Lake Nature Study Area

On 6 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Swan Lake Nature Study Area, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007

The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

List of people known as father or mother of something

Unilaterally restoring the article after an AfD is not allowed by Wikipedia policy, and will be met with speedy deletion under CSD G4. If you object to the outcome of the AfD (as you have stated in your restore rationale), please open a DRV to contest said AfD. I have speedily deleted the article in the interim; however, I have no prejudice in regards to the future existence of the article. This post is merely a notification, and not a judgment on the article itself. —Kurykh 04:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goshin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

List of people known as father or mother of something

Please help us to restore this article at Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history. Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

History of paleontology ready for FA?

I am considering nominating History of paleontology for FA. I have made all of the improvements I could think of based on my experience with A.R. Wallace, but I would very much appreciate it if you could find the time to take a look and see if you think I have missed anything and leave any suggestions you might have on the articles talk page. Rusty Cashman 09:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of what is happening on modern evolutionary synthesis?

There is a group of editors who want to revert back 2 months and waste a lot of good work (mostly not mine I may add). They cite some prose stylistic issues and issues with reference format none of which in my opinion would be all that difficult to fix. As far as I can tell they seem to just not like the editor who did the bulk of the changes. I admit he can be a little difficult to work with and he is fairly new and not yet used to working in an encyclopedic style which causes problems. However, he does excellent research using excellent sources, and to throw away the valuable changes he has made to the structure and content of the article over the past couple of months is in my opinion just silly. I was hoping you would be willing to stick your head into this hornet nest and give an opinion as I know you have had an interest in this article in the past.Rusty Cashman 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

bird ID

They are Red-winged Blackbirds. Cheers Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OOOps, the otherone (which I initially asumed was a female) is actually a molting male Yellow-headed Blackbird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On August 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Morris Goodman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ragesoss 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Flagged rev., quality removal

Good idea removing that section, since it was just confusing people on the talk page. It's the problem with discussing the potential of an extension at the same time as its implementation on en:wp. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks Ragesoss. I needed to catch a bus so I only did the move. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientific journal cats

I saw this edit you made. Rather than remove Category:Scientific journals as a supercat, what is probably needed is to put it somewhere in a topic category. Ideally, Category:Molecular phylogenetics journals and Category:Evolution journals, but at least the science categories if those don't exist, eg. Category:Molecular phylogenetics or Category:Phylogenetics. This is because the Category:Elsevier scientific journals is only a "by publisher" category, not a "by topic" category, so instead of removing Category:Scientific journals, a subcategory of Category:Scientific journals should have replaced Category:Scientific journals. Does that make sense? Carcharoth 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm now trying to popular categories like Category:Cognitive science literature, but the science categories are rather haphazardly organised. I found the books that are now in Category:Cognitive science literature, but separating out the people and institute stuff into subcategories is a slow, tedious process. By the way, I've been looking out for the History of Science newsletter, but nothing so far. Is there a particular area it would help to focus on? I don't have the books for getting articles to featured status, but would be happy to work on other areas. Carcharoth 11:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Finding the subcats is an art sometimes, though I should have spotted that one. Carcharoth 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost

Hello, I am going to do a follow-up on WikiScanner for the Signpost, like you suggested, but am not quite sure how I should go about it. Could you please help with this? Thanks, Neranei (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice, I will take it as I'm new to this. I will try my best to finish it! Thanks again, Neranei (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fetus

Hi, as you suggested, I have copied the following four images from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:6_weeks_pregnant.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:10_weeks_pregnant.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:20_weeks_pregnant.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:40_weeks_pregnant.jpg

Does anything more need to be done? I assume that these four pages need to be modifed now by someone like you, right? Thanks.Ferrylodge 01:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Incidentally, I didn't create these images. They appear to be watermarked by the company that created them. I assume that there's no problem with that, right?Ferrylodge 02:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Oh, I just got your message. Thanks. I guess I'll wait and see what develops here, and I appreciate anything you can do to move things along and/or straighten things out.Ferrylodge 02:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Sorry, I guess I inadvertently made a mess here. Anyway, as you suggested, I've added a line to commons images copying the original upload log for each image (i.e., the uploader, the date, and the upload summary).Ferrylodge 02:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All's well that ends well.  :-) Ferrylodge 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2R hypothesis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 17:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

fields of history; history by topic

There is nothing in these categories defining how they are different. There are no article saying what they are or how they are different. They are being being discussed for possible deletion/merger into something else. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 2 Clarification and improvement is needed. Hmains 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fields of history

You are rather jumping the gun (and causing yourself extra work) by renaming the category whilst the CfD debate is ongoing. I personally think your changes are correct, but it rather confuses debate, and is against CfD rules. Johnbod 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

the nomination is very new - you clearly don't spend much time at CfD! Johnbod 16:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo interview

That's fine (though you might check in and see if the interview's still going on when you get home, if you're interested). Ral315 » 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 28

Good news, everyone: Wikipedia Weekly Episode 28 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/09/04/wikipedia-weekly-28/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

History of Science Collaboration of the Month

Hi. You suggested that perhaps I should start the collaboration on Greek mathematics; how does that happen? I'm fairly new at editing Wikipedia, and so any advice you might have on these processes would be appreciated. I wouldn't want to step on any toes by starting a new collaboration before the previous one was done. SmaleDuffin 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Galileo FAR

This has been left hanging around the featured article review because of lack of consensus. Both of the books you mention are listed in the references but not in the notes; perhaps they were consulted. Might you list specifics that you feel are missing from the coverage? Some work has gone into this one and people might act on suggestions. Cheers, Marskell 12:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Journal of Molecular Evolution, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On September 12, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clement Markert, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear expert in science,

I would like someone to do an experienced copyedit on the article Clonaid. I spent the equivalent of 2 shifts (16 hours) trying to improve the article from this to this. Since you know how to make featured articles, I was thinking that you would be interested. If you have any suggestions, please post them at Wikipedia:Peer review/Clonaid. The article is currently a featured article candidate. Sincerely, Kmarinas86 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Eudiometry

If you have a moment, would you help out at the Joseph Priestley scientific peer review. I'm not really sure what eudiometry is or what Priestley did with it, but perhaps you could help sort out what is going on with that? (Thanks for mentioning me and JP in the HPS newsletter, by the way. Perhaps some interested editors will come over!) Awadewit | talk 06:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal at JP

Is there anything you can do about the vandal at Joseph Priestley? You have the power! :) Awadewit | talk 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Sea Around Us, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why let main portal pages be edited?

Hello, Sage. I saw that you protected Portal:History a few months ago, commenting that "the page is pure markup, so there is no reason for new users to be editing." Well, today I had the opportunity to debug this utterly blown-up page. The "Featured article" table structure was missing a pipe ("|"), causing it to gobble up everything below it. So I wonder--'cause I'm fairly new here--why is it that just anyone can have a go at pages like this one?? It seems odd, since almost everything is transcluded. Almost invites vandalism, no? I'm at this talk page if you care to enlighten me about (I'm sure) a Wikipedia convention I'm not familiar with. Hult041956 01:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I got your reply.

• About new and anon editors: no problem; I totally get it. And the good news is... things can always be put right.
• About back-history views of the portal page. There's something very strange about this. (Way beyond my ability to figure out.) When I saw this page yesterday, it was totally wacked out. As I said, one table was busted and was gobbling up everything that came after it, including the whole left side div. I tried to find the edit that had caused it, but all back-history views were similarly broken! I went back many days... to well before a time I knew that I had seen that page in an OK state. I managed to fix it by comparing to another portal page line by line. Then, (wow!) I saw what you saw: that all back-history had it right. I know I'm not crazy, and you can see the change I made. Perhaps markup history is not kept in the DB to the same extent as content changes. Or maybe it was space aliens or cosmic rays or something. I'll move on and stop thinking about it.  :-)
• About history of science. I took a look at some of your work here... really first rate. Very interesting stuff. I have an interest in history of science myself, but only as a lay person (little academic background in it). Anyway, perhaps we'll cross paths again.

Thank you for explaining something to a newcomer. Best wishes, Hult041956 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I hate to make such a suggestion, given my stated political proclivities, but I feel our options are limited. How would you feel if I were to attempt to open an RfC regarding so called User:Nitramrekcap and his various sockpuppet accounts? I feel somewhat shamed to do such a thing, but feel that this user has displayed a breathtaking contempt for Wikipedia and it's content policies. It is also obvious that this user has used dynamic IP adresses to circumvent policies such as 3rr. Would you support me in I were to undertake such an endevour? Ps Thanks for supporting me in the past, I appreciate it, even if I didn't acknowledge it at the time :) Alun 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Do you know where I can report plagiarism? The Godfrey Argent article has some sentences copied directly from its sources without quotation marks (see talk page). Thanks. Ah, the joys of administration. Awadewit | talk 23:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 31

Oh, boy! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 31 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/09/26/wikipedia-weekly-31-return-of-the-panel/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly. We're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 02:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Rachel Carson

Thanks for the star, but more importantly for your great work on the Rachel Carson FA! It's always so splendid to see important topics and people pass through FAC. On an unrelated note, I notice that you've written some articles on academic journals. I don't know if you'd be interested, but User:Jayvdb recently launched a WikiProject, WP:WPAJ, to improve and standardize Wikipedia's coverage of academic journals. Cheers! --JayHenry 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)