This user may have left Wikipedia. Shootbamboo has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Hi Shootbamboo. Thank you for expanding the article Perfluorooctanoic acid. You seem to be working on that topic (as a scientist) for a while. In the section “Manufacture and uses” this review article might be cited. -- Leyo 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
“PFOA is used in the fabrication of grease-, water-, and stain-resistant carpets, clothes, and other materials, including the products StainMaster (carpet) and Gore-Tex (clothing).” Where do you have this information from? AFAIK, the sole current use of PFOA is as an emulsifier for the processing of fluoropolymers. However, the fluoropolymers are then used for the products described above. -- Leyo 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
To ensure that you will notice it, I reply here. :-) You asked for my suggestions. Here you go (incl. questions):
-- Leyo 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Leyo, thank you for your time in posting that. I am going to reply now, in a quick manner. But I will be leaving out detail, just to address your concerns in a timely manner. I might leave a couple unmentioned but I plan on being back soon to address them.
Ok maybe I hit everything in detail not sure. I'll check back later. Thanks a ton. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 05:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just found this new thesis by accident that might interesting for your work on PFCs (if you didn't know it already). -- Leyo 20:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You are pouring so much editing energy into this article, so I worry that your effort is on-target. Wikipedia, as I understand it, has no aspirations to evolve into a technical review journal (ES&T, etc), and I think that numerous references are less desirable (at least to me and some others) than a fewer general ones. I underatand that you probably feel that many specialized references are "needed" because the theme (persistence of PFOA) is fairly topical, thus the overviews are just not available. And you might be right, partially. Also the numerous references raises the question of balance (NPOV) in a way: doubtless many papers have been written on the production, processing, and benefits of PFOA, yet this scholarship goes uncited in the current article, which focuses on bioaccummulation and potential tox issues. Just some thoughts to consider as you organize this nice article. I'll check back later to hear your views on my comments, which are intended to be constructive.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You seem to be an expert on organofluorine compounds. What about writing an article on fluorotelomer alcohols. There is a short one in the German Wikipedia [4]. Best 212.41.90.183 ( talk) 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to thank for your interest in trying to improve some of Wikipedia's chemistry articles. However, I am concerned about some of your editing behavior. Wikipedia is founded on, and should operate on, a spirit of cooperation and consensus, but I feel that your attitude at times appears contrary to this - as if you are trying to control article content regardless of others' input. There are many chemists here that a depth of experience and knowledge. I think it would be wise for you to take some time to listen to them. Your prolific editing to shape articles to your liking while there is ongoing discussion borders at times has bordered on being disruptive. Please discuss first, then make edits based on consensus. Disruptive contributors can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and I would hate to see that happen in this case. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is a very useful guideline. When someone reverts something you do, you shouldn't revert it again but discuss it. I'm thinking specifically about this revert of yours. According to the guideline, the onus is on you to explain how your edit improves the article instead of simply reverting again (the latter approach is the way edit wars get started). But well, to save time I'll say why I think your edit was not constructive:
Yo make things even worse, your revert was non-selective. Note that when I "reverted" your changes I left in the changes I agreed with (the deletion of the examples). But you also reverted trivial housekeeping changes I did, which I hope are not under dispute (the categorization of the article). -- Itub ( talk) 07:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Shootbamboo, thanks for your comment on my talk page, and also thanks for responding to people's concerns. Wikipedia can be quite a rough and tumble, and sometimes emotions can run high (even over quite minor issues), so it's best to try and keep a cool head. I suspect from your actions today that you can become a valued and respected part of our community. I certainly respect the fact that you try to base your arguments on reason, and to back them up with the literature.
If you can enable your email (if you're willing to receive emails from other Wikipedians), I can send you an email from David Lemal. I contacted him on Friday night (I know him a little) asking for clarification of his definition, and he replied this morning. With private emails I prefer to share these on a more personal level, rather than in the public domain of Wikipedia. I'd also ask that you keep the email from the public eye - not because it's particularly controversial, just to respect Lemal's privacy. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 04:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Basically, I could insert other things, such as how wonderful a surfactant PFOS is, and how wonderfully toxic perfluoroisobutylene is, but I haven't. You don't see the same problem I do? That the page is too heavily weighted to organofluorines instead of fluorine itself? Thanks. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 06:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Because F2 is so reactive, it shouldn't have a biological role (unless we look up some chemical warfare info or occupational information about exposure). because of this, and because the section has languished for so long (thanks to Stone for adding content but I have now moved that content to organofluorine), i am going to remove the section. the dental stuff is for floride not fluorine. additionally, there are many edits on this talk page that discuss the bias this article has towards organofluorine compounds. it looks like an advertisement for pharmaceutical companies to me. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As to the role of flourine in biology, we don't know what it is, except that Mertz's fluoride-deprived rats were scruffy, puny, and ill. All this is prevented by levels of fluoride far below those added to water supplies for dental reasons. THAT role is almost certainly not meditated via a fluoro-organics (no F-C bonds)l; it's a direct strengthening action of F- on hydroxyappetite salts in enamel. There's now no place in the article where somebody who wants to know about fluorine and biology can find anything. Don't move stuff without links to show where you put it. Organofluorine is not only a non-obvious place for biology, but in the case of teeth it is wrong, and in the case of the rest of biology, nobody KNOWS whether it is right or wrong. S B H arris 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Good job on starting the articles on organobromine compounds and perfluorononanoic acid! I think you'll find that creating new articles can be more rewarding than cleaning up and debating the existing ones. That's what I do a lot of the time: crate small articles to fill gaps in Wikipedia. A couple of ideas for the organobromine article: halons used in fire extinguishers, and tyrian purple, another bromine-containing natural product. -- Itub ( talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 02:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Rather than simply removing the term "superior", I encourage you to come up with other, concise, language to differentiate FKM from other heat- and chemical-resistant elastomers. Neoprene is a chemical resistant elastomer. So is nitrile rubber. Silicone is a heat-resistant (but not chemical-resistant) elastomer. So some language is needed to point out that FKM does indeed have superior chemical resistance to other chemical-resistant elastomers. Delmlsfan ( talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing toward a consensus. I think it's important that we have such discussions. Badagnani ( talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the article update. I'm trying to decide if this article should be tagged to be expanded and put into sections [e.g. by country]. Let me know if you have any input on this. -- Christopher Kraus ( talk) 15:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi ShootBamboo, I have copy-edited the lead text of the pfoa article, to show how I think a precise, short, concrete summary should be. I typically left out a lot of the non-precise information. Feel free to revert or better to re-introduce some (but sparingly) information about where all those places are that might lead to PFAO. If the legal actions are really important, perhaps a small paragraph on it should be re-introduced in the lead text too. Notably missing is information about who produces it, how much, for what application, etc: concrete details. Just some recommendations. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC).
Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
See User_talk:KillerChihuahua#"fringe-view" new editors KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shootbamboo. I think this substance (replacement of PFOS) would also be worth of having an article. There is in fact a stub on its anion, nonaflate. The structural formula already exists. What do you think? -- Leyo 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for a friendly message. It would be easier for me to answer more specific questions - you rather asked my "WP philosophy". In my area (materials science and around), WP is a mess. Articles are patched up from fragmented, unsupported and often incorrect statements, and I haven't made my mind yet on fixing that - I just quickly correct whatever I can correct quickly. Blantantly wrong statements and wrong references are probably a priority (as you might notice, I prefer first-hand journal articles, especially free-download ones). Usually my edits are either welcomed or unnoticed, but every now and then I get bashed (as you and many other WP editors) for violating this and that. First it was disappointing, but one has to get thick skin on that (world is not ideal, same as WP). WP guardians have to do their job and sort out spam edits; they usually don't known enough about your field, and they look dead serious only at the surface. Once I reply them, explaining why I did this and that, I revert my edits and its goes through. Off course, tact and common sense should be exercised and all the criticism should be analyzed for why it has appeared in the first place, perhaps there was a good reason (behind a disproportional response :).
Coming back to hydrophobe, I just had those examples off hand. That article is yet very unbalanced and incomplete, and I felt it clearly misses applications.. I believe there is nothing wrong with this and that subject, its just a matter of quality and balance of the content. Best wishes. NIMSoffice ( talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I will reply here to Smokefoot as well.
Sorry I was a while responding, I got fed up with Wikipedia and just left it for a while. Life's too short to waste it fighting a battle one isn't meant to win. But when I feel up to it, I do try.
You mean lamestream sources, not reliable ones. And yes, I am happy to say that I am a real human being and so naturally take truth over BS. That is why I fight for truth. My concept for better Wikipedia pages is more truthful, accurate pages. Not placing BS spins on truth to sound better. I have zero interest in that. If you are interested in helping to make people on Wikipedia appreciate the harmful effects of sodium fluoride I'd greatly appreciate your help. Not only for adults and elderly people, but for the children. Mothers who simply don't know any better, and who may mistakenly consult a resource like Wikipedia for the...facts. Neurolanis ( talk) 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct. But in that case, given the particular user's history, I thought it at least partly pertinent on that page. I do try to be patient and understanding of people who come in all excited about saving the world (with Neurolanis, here is an example, and with another IP, here), but Neurolanis just doesn't seem to want to listen. He's just an alternative-viewed person, neither right nor wrong, but not probably not befitting a mainstream-based (or lamestream?) place such as WP. Or we all could be wrong, who knows... :) Keep up your good editing. Freestyle-69 ( talk) 08:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shoot,
thought you might be interested in this.
Ben ( talk) 07:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you are interested in the topic and occasionally concerned about my slant, I made a significant edit to fluorine. Cheers, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Meant to give you this a while ago:
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your tremendous work on those extraordinarily tough and thus eternally persistent organofluorine compounds. Hard to see how anyone could not be disturbed by such things. II | ( t - c) 07:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
Fantastic new article; always a pleasure to see something like this when I'm patrolling the new pages :). Considered submitting it to DYK? Ironholds ( talk) 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait, so are you saying cast iron IS toxic when it comes into direct contact with food? The phrase "seasoned or enameled for ease of use" is lousy English, and incorrect. FiveRings ( talk) 03:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you indeed for protecting my userpage.
You know, some time ago you asked my advice on psychological problems related to Wiki editing .. I got one myself recently and sought advice of more experienced editor, i.e. you never know when you hit an angry guy and why would he get angry, but most hard-core wikipedians are friendly. They might scrutinize your edits, but they are ready to provide moral and technical help. NIMSoffice ( talk) 06:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am inquiring as to why you removed my edit from the Bisphenol A article on June 30, 2009. I specified the types of products that were being removed from shelves, baby bottles and other children’s products, because those are currently the only items that have in fact been removed from shelves because they contain BPA. Sharon4Health ( talk) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you removed the structure from Almagate. It is because you don't see the negative charges on the OH ions? I was having a problem with very thin charges - if you check the blow-up on commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Almagate.svg&width=2000px - you can see they are there, or is there something else wrong? - Leyo on Commnons has put a disputed structure template up - I just took the SMILES and converted it to a structure. I now have the fix for the thin negative charges - if that is all that's wrong then I can fix it. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shootbamboo. I see that you have added the dead references to the article I have removed. I have no problem with that, but could you maybe help me to get the ones that would work? Thanks. Kind regards, Lourie Pieterse 17:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
My concern related to WP:NPF, the section of BLP on "persons who are relatively unknown": "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Boldface in original. The damage to her apartment was not related to her notability, which is as a journalist, so I omitted.-- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Bencherlite Talk 11:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shootbamboo, I notice you've done some good work expanding the Biomonitoring (chemistry) article recently. I have a big update to propose for it, which I'd like to run past you. The reason I don't simply add it myself now is simple: the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is a client of my employer and I want to be very careful about my potential conflict of interest on the subject. I've approached this keeping in mind that it should be in the interest both of ACC and Wikipedia for this article to be more informative, accurate and well-sourced -- and that's what I believe this expansion would accomplish.
A bit of background: I had been working on this article offline for a few months when I saw recently that you had expanded it, so I took some more time to incorporate information you had added (and in the case of methods, the full paragraph) for the article I have currently posted in my userspace. I've called it Human biomonitoring.
In addition to this suggested namespace move, I'm also proposing that the current article Biomonitoring be retitled Aquatic biomonitoring, though I have no further edits to suggest at this time. I have also created a proposed disambig page to link the two. The three articles are collected on a single page in my userspace called Biomonitoring restructuring project.
Before I realized you had improved the article, I had taken this proposal to the Wikipedia Help Desk. They tried to be helpful but, being unfamiliar with the subject matter, opted to punt. Might be helpful for you to see that ( click here), as I give a somewhat more thorough explanation of my approach and the full reasoning behind the proposed name changes.
Let me know if you have any thoughts here. If you like it, feel free to move these over yourself, or let me know if you have any questions or comments. If I don't hear back I'll probably run this past one of the relevant WikiProjects on this subject matter. Hope to get your feedback. Cheers, NMS Bill ( talk) 19:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Supporting Information (PDF).Hi again, Shootbamboo. I mentioned last month that I was working on another article in the same subject area as Biomonitoring, and I've now finished -- it's a proposed rewrite of the Body burden article, which is now posted to my userspace. I believe the current Body burden article is a bit unfocused, places the wrong emphasis on some things and contains information which I think does not belong -- particularly one section which reads pretty much as straight advocacy. I've posted a careful (and lengthy) explanation of what I see wrong with the article to the Body burden Talk page, along with a request for someone else to make this edit, and I've also reached out to another editor who has been involved with the page this year. Let me know if you can help. Cheers, NMS Bill ( talk) 03:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any.
The BBC website had it as part of its "QI: Fact of the Day", which is linked to the QI website. If you're unfamiliar with QI, you can read the wikipedia article about it. It's likely to have been thoroughly researched. However, I couldn't find a permanent source on that one. I thought I'd put it there, hoping someone would find said source and be able to add it. I can fully understand why it was reverted (although it should be noted that death by whatever it is you reverted it to isn't referenced either!). His death needs to be referenced somehow, because otherwise dying by falling over a cow is no less plausible than dying of a heart-attack.
Alex Holowczak ( talk) 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I moved your comment on the debt to its own section because it appeared to be unrelated to the other comment in the same section. If this was the wrong thing to do then--by all means--move it back. If this is the case then I might just be crazy, but it might help if you made a more substantive comment so that the relationship between the two can be more easily seen. 018 ( talk) 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Office of Thrift Supervision at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JulieSpaulding ( talk) 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I got it from The Elements from Theodore Gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the argument that Iran used chemical weapons at Halabja is in such a minority of sources that it does not belong in the lead. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5JGldonhk6wC&pg=PA182. Please discuss this before adding it back in. Fences& Windows 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there
Noticed your edits to this article. I don't think it's a good idea to arbitrarily break a naming convention for reasons of readability, even when other sources do. We had a discussion at Talk:Tetraethyllead about that not too long ago. Could you reconsider? Take tosic acid, p-Toluenesulfonic acid, for example. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! You are marvelous. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya! I'm glad you like my edit-so-far - one of my favourite jobs on WP is making those small changes that can make a good article even better. Bedtime for me now, though. I'll do some more work on it over the next few days. -- Kay Dekker ( talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Added page numbers for you from the PDF file per your request.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 ( talk) 02:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
To help you, I also gave you more info from the actual congressional report (sourced to page 44) quoting the reporters who wrote the story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 ( talk) 02:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your helpful edits...the reason that last paragraph is so important is because it contradicts Krakauer's book...his book says Wilkinson gave the Washington Post "exclusive" access...however, the reporter in the congressional report directly contradicts that and says they had multiple sources...this is critical to make sure that Wilkinson's page is fair and reflects both sides...can you add that one back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 ( talk) 03:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be skillful at editing this article with a neutral point of view, so I will probably back away. My last suggestion was to try to connect this page to others by explicitly mentioning Wilkinson in articles on Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman and others, hence my orphan tag, which hopefully is temporary. Best wishes, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 04:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Jim Wilkinson (communications) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 21:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
On 15 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jim Wilkinson (communications), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a minor point, but my {{ content}} tag was over my assertion that Koch brothers should be in the #See also section. I can't replace the tag, per 3RR, but I would appreciate it being restored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with your revert on my addition to Gore-Tex. I'd found and cited a valid article that has history of material and listed different types of available material with their properties. Why do you think this is advocacy? I would appreciate if you change content to make it more neutral and make contribution more useful instead of deleting someone's entire contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sytelus ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you meant can't here. [9] — goethean ॐ 21:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shootbambo. Thanks for helping me get started. How do I respond to things that you have written?
I agree that Democracy Now! is relentlessly biased, so I think we should try to eschew those references. When we edit conservative things, we shouldn't go to the far left. Similarly when we edit left things, we shouldn't go to the far right. Am I missing something here?
Thanks,
Heinleinscat ( talk) 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shootbambo. Thanks for helping me get started. How do I respond to things that you have written?
I agree that Democracy Now! is relentlessly biased, so I think we should try to eschew those references. When we edit conservative things, we shouldn't go to the far left. Similarly when we edit left things, we shouldn't go to the far right. Am I missing something here?
Thanks,
Heinleinscat ( talk) 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey. You asked a question about something going on in an article discussion on my page. Then you reverted it. Was that an accident? If so, I'll just respond here for convenience. I'm in your camp regarding the passage about his brother's campaign. I may also have dropped a comment to this effect on the talk. I think we should report his support or persuasion of his brother's campaign to whatever degree our sources have it, and leave it at that. We should also probably link to his brother's article. And we can link something to 1980 Libertarian Party Nomination too. Information about the campaign or links to it can be better found there. - Digiphi ( Talk) 00:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Shootbamboo, can you explain to me what those + with the numbers are? ( Heinleinscat ( talk) 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
Hi, If there was something that looked like POV from my edits, feel free to move them. But substantively the changes I made were accurate. I pointed to valid sources such as 990 tax forms. Feel free to revise my edits by removing what you consider POV, but please do so without removing valid, supported information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catdown3 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point Shootbamboo. What research and/or citations are suggested to correct the edit so it complies with guidelines? Bluestarfish88 ( talk) 22:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Saw your comment on Wiki chemicals page. Alas, I try to do good. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Chzz ► 03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You were previously involved. Please see. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quantitative easing on a topic you have discussed before. You are invited to participate. Lagrange613 ( talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI there is one if you want to comment. Here CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Red Link Removal Barnstar | ||
For creating
Chlorfenvinfos, a
chemical that is used as an
insecticide and an
acaricide. Good work! ~~
Ebe123~~ (+)
talk Contribs 09:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This user may have left Wikipedia. Shootbamboo has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Hi Shootbamboo. Thank you for expanding the article Perfluorooctanoic acid. You seem to be working on that topic (as a scientist) for a while. In the section “Manufacture and uses” this review article might be cited. -- Leyo 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
“PFOA is used in the fabrication of grease-, water-, and stain-resistant carpets, clothes, and other materials, including the products StainMaster (carpet) and Gore-Tex (clothing).” Where do you have this information from? AFAIK, the sole current use of PFOA is as an emulsifier for the processing of fluoropolymers. However, the fluoropolymers are then used for the products described above. -- Leyo 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
To ensure that you will notice it, I reply here. :-) You asked for my suggestions. Here you go (incl. questions):
-- Leyo 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Leyo, thank you for your time in posting that. I am going to reply now, in a quick manner. But I will be leaving out detail, just to address your concerns in a timely manner. I might leave a couple unmentioned but I plan on being back soon to address them.
Ok maybe I hit everything in detail not sure. I'll check back later. Thanks a ton. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 05:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just found this new thesis by accident that might interesting for your work on PFCs (if you didn't know it already). -- Leyo 20:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You are pouring so much editing energy into this article, so I worry that your effort is on-target. Wikipedia, as I understand it, has no aspirations to evolve into a technical review journal (ES&T, etc), and I think that numerous references are less desirable (at least to me and some others) than a fewer general ones. I underatand that you probably feel that many specialized references are "needed" because the theme (persistence of PFOA) is fairly topical, thus the overviews are just not available. And you might be right, partially. Also the numerous references raises the question of balance (NPOV) in a way: doubtless many papers have been written on the production, processing, and benefits of PFOA, yet this scholarship goes uncited in the current article, which focuses on bioaccummulation and potential tox issues. Just some thoughts to consider as you organize this nice article. I'll check back later to hear your views on my comments, which are intended to be constructive.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You seem to be an expert on organofluorine compounds. What about writing an article on fluorotelomer alcohols. There is a short one in the German Wikipedia [4]. Best 212.41.90.183 ( talk) 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to thank for your interest in trying to improve some of Wikipedia's chemistry articles. However, I am concerned about some of your editing behavior. Wikipedia is founded on, and should operate on, a spirit of cooperation and consensus, but I feel that your attitude at times appears contrary to this - as if you are trying to control article content regardless of others' input. There are many chemists here that a depth of experience and knowledge. I think it would be wise for you to take some time to listen to them. Your prolific editing to shape articles to your liking while there is ongoing discussion borders at times has bordered on being disruptive. Please discuss first, then make edits based on consensus. Disruptive contributors can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and I would hate to see that happen in this case. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is a very useful guideline. When someone reverts something you do, you shouldn't revert it again but discuss it. I'm thinking specifically about this revert of yours. According to the guideline, the onus is on you to explain how your edit improves the article instead of simply reverting again (the latter approach is the way edit wars get started). But well, to save time I'll say why I think your edit was not constructive:
Yo make things even worse, your revert was non-selective. Note that when I "reverted" your changes I left in the changes I agreed with (the deletion of the examples). But you also reverted trivial housekeeping changes I did, which I hope are not under dispute (the categorization of the article). -- Itub ( talk) 07:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Shootbamboo, thanks for your comment on my talk page, and also thanks for responding to people's concerns. Wikipedia can be quite a rough and tumble, and sometimes emotions can run high (even over quite minor issues), so it's best to try and keep a cool head. I suspect from your actions today that you can become a valued and respected part of our community. I certainly respect the fact that you try to base your arguments on reason, and to back them up with the literature.
If you can enable your email (if you're willing to receive emails from other Wikipedians), I can send you an email from David Lemal. I contacted him on Friday night (I know him a little) asking for clarification of his definition, and he replied this morning. With private emails I prefer to share these on a more personal level, rather than in the public domain of Wikipedia. I'd also ask that you keep the email from the public eye - not because it's particularly controversial, just to respect Lemal's privacy. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 04:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Basically, I could insert other things, such as how wonderful a surfactant PFOS is, and how wonderfully toxic perfluoroisobutylene is, but I haven't. You don't see the same problem I do? That the page is too heavily weighted to organofluorines instead of fluorine itself? Thanks. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 06:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Because F2 is so reactive, it shouldn't have a biological role (unless we look up some chemical warfare info or occupational information about exposure). because of this, and because the section has languished for so long (thanks to Stone for adding content but I have now moved that content to organofluorine), i am going to remove the section. the dental stuff is for floride not fluorine. additionally, there are many edits on this talk page that discuss the bias this article has towards organofluorine compounds. it looks like an advertisement for pharmaceutical companies to me. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As to the role of flourine in biology, we don't know what it is, except that Mertz's fluoride-deprived rats were scruffy, puny, and ill. All this is prevented by levels of fluoride far below those added to water supplies for dental reasons. THAT role is almost certainly not meditated via a fluoro-organics (no F-C bonds)l; it's a direct strengthening action of F- on hydroxyappetite salts in enamel. There's now no place in the article where somebody who wants to know about fluorine and biology can find anything. Don't move stuff without links to show where you put it. Organofluorine is not only a non-obvious place for biology, but in the case of teeth it is wrong, and in the case of the rest of biology, nobody KNOWS whether it is right or wrong. S B H arris 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Good job on starting the articles on organobromine compounds and perfluorononanoic acid! I think you'll find that creating new articles can be more rewarding than cleaning up and debating the existing ones. That's what I do a lot of the time: crate small articles to fill gaps in Wikipedia. A couple of ideas for the organobromine article: halons used in fire extinguishers, and tyrian purple, another bromine-containing natural product. -- Itub ( talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 02:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Rather than simply removing the term "superior", I encourage you to come up with other, concise, language to differentiate FKM from other heat- and chemical-resistant elastomers. Neoprene is a chemical resistant elastomer. So is nitrile rubber. Silicone is a heat-resistant (but not chemical-resistant) elastomer. So some language is needed to point out that FKM does indeed have superior chemical resistance to other chemical-resistant elastomers. Delmlsfan ( talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing toward a consensus. I think it's important that we have such discussions. Badagnani ( talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the article update. I'm trying to decide if this article should be tagged to be expanded and put into sections [e.g. by country]. Let me know if you have any input on this. -- Christopher Kraus ( talk) 15:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi ShootBamboo, I have copy-edited the lead text of the pfoa article, to show how I think a precise, short, concrete summary should be. I typically left out a lot of the non-precise information. Feel free to revert or better to re-introduce some (but sparingly) information about where all those places are that might lead to PFAO. If the legal actions are really important, perhaps a small paragraph on it should be re-introduced in the lead text too. Notably missing is information about who produces it, how much, for what application, etc: concrete details. Just some recommendations. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC).
Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
See User_talk:KillerChihuahua#"fringe-view" new editors KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shootbamboo. I think this substance (replacement of PFOS) would also be worth of having an article. There is in fact a stub on its anion, nonaflate. The structural formula already exists. What do you think? -- Leyo 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for a friendly message. It would be easier for me to answer more specific questions - you rather asked my "WP philosophy". In my area (materials science and around), WP is a mess. Articles are patched up from fragmented, unsupported and often incorrect statements, and I haven't made my mind yet on fixing that - I just quickly correct whatever I can correct quickly. Blantantly wrong statements and wrong references are probably a priority (as you might notice, I prefer first-hand journal articles, especially free-download ones). Usually my edits are either welcomed or unnoticed, but every now and then I get bashed (as you and many other WP editors) for violating this and that. First it was disappointing, but one has to get thick skin on that (world is not ideal, same as WP). WP guardians have to do their job and sort out spam edits; they usually don't known enough about your field, and they look dead serious only at the surface. Once I reply them, explaining why I did this and that, I revert my edits and its goes through. Off course, tact and common sense should be exercised and all the criticism should be analyzed for why it has appeared in the first place, perhaps there was a good reason (behind a disproportional response :).
Coming back to hydrophobe, I just had those examples off hand. That article is yet very unbalanced and incomplete, and I felt it clearly misses applications.. I believe there is nothing wrong with this and that subject, its just a matter of quality and balance of the content. Best wishes. NIMSoffice ( talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I will reply here to Smokefoot as well.
Sorry I was a while responding, I got fed up with Wikipedia and just left it for a while. Life's too short to waste it fighting a battle one isn't meant to win. But when I feel up to it, I do try.
You mean lamestream sources, not reliable ones. And yes, I am happy to say that I am a real human being and so naturally take truth over BS. That is why I fight for truth. My concept for better Wikipedia pages is more truthful, accurate pages. Not placing BS spins on truth to sound better. I have zero interest in that. If you are interested in helping to make people on Wikipedia appreciate the harmful effects of sodium fluoride I'd greatly appreciate your help. Not only for adults and elderly people, but for the children. Mothers who simply don't know any better, and who may mistakenly consult a resource like Wikipedia for the...facts. Neurolanis ( talk) 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct. But in that case, given the particular user's history, I thought it at least partly pertinent on that page. I do try to be patient and understanding of people who come in all excited about saving the world (with Neurolanis, here is an example, and with another IP, here), but Neurolanis just doesn't seem to want to listen. He's just an alternative-viewed person, neither right nor wrong, but not probably not befitting a mainstream-based (or lamestream?) place such as WP. Or we all could be wrong, who knows... :) Keep up your good editing. Freestyle-69 ( talk) 08:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shoot,
thought you might be interested in this.
Ben ( talk) 07:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you are interested in the topic and occasionally concerned about my slant, I made a significant edit to fluorine. Cheers, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Meant to give you this a while ago:
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your tremendous work on those extraordinarily tough and thus eternally persistent organofluorine compounds. Hard to see how anyone could not be disturbed by such things. II | ( t - c) 07:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
Fantastic new article; always a pleasure to see something like this when I'm patrolling the new pages :). Considered submitting it to DYK? Ironholds ( talk) 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait, so are you saying cast iron IS toxic when it comes into direct contact with food? The phrase "seasoned or enameled for ease of use" is lousy English, and incorrect. FiveRings ( talk) 03:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you indeed for protecting my userpage.
You know, some time ago you asked my advice on psychological problems related to Wiki editing .. I got one myself recently and sought advice of more experienced editor, i.e. you never know when you hit an angry guy and why would he get angry, but most hard-core wikipedians are friendly. They might scrutinize your edits, but they are ready to provide moral and technical help. NIMSoffice ( talk) 06:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am inquiring as to why you removed my edit from the Bisphenol A article on June 30, 2009. I specified the types of products that were being removed from shelves, baby bottles and other children’s products, because those are currently the only items that have in fact been removed from shelves because they contain BPA. Sharon4Health ( talk) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you removed the structure from Almagate. It is because you don't see the negative charges on the OH ions? I was having a problem with very thin charges - if you check the blow-up on commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Almagate.svg&width=2000px - you can see they are there, or is there something else wrong? - Leyo on Commnons has put a disputed structure template up - I just took the SMILES and converted it to a structure. I now have the fix for the thin negative charges - if that is all that's wrong then I can fix it. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shootbamboo. I see that you have added the dead references to the article I have removed. I have no problem with that, but could you maybe help me to get the ones that would work? Thanks. Kind regards, Lourie Pieterse 17:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
My concern related to WP:NPF, the section of BLP on "persons who are relatively unknown": "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Boldface in original. The damage to her apartment was not related to her notability, which is as a journalist, so I omitted.-- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 05:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Bencherlite Talk 11:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shootbamboo, I notice you've done some good work expanding the Biomonitoring (chemistry) article recently. I have a big update to propose for it, which I'd like to run past you. The reason I don't simply add it myself now is simple: the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is a client of my employer and I want to be very careful about my potential conflict of interest on the subject. I've approached this keeping in mind that it should be in the interest both of ACC and Wikipedia for this article to be more informative, accurate and well-sourced -- and that's what I believe this expansion would accomplish.
A bit of background: I had been working on this article offline for a few months when I saw recently that you had expanded it, so I took some more time to incorporate information you had added (and in the case of methods, the full paragraph) for the article I have currently posted in my userspace. I've called it Human biomonitoring.
In addition to this suggested namespace move, I'm also proposing that the current article Biomonitoring be retitled Aquatic biomonitoring, though I have no further edits to suggest at this time. I have also created a proposed disambig page to link the two. The three articles are collected on a single page in my userspace called Biomonitoring restructuring project.
Before I realized you had improved the article, I had taken this proposal to the Wikipedia Help Desk. They tried to be helpful but, being unfamiliar with the subject matter, opted to punt. Might be helpful for you to see that ( click here), as I give a somewhat more thorough explanation of my approach and the full reasoning behind the proposed name changes.
Let me know if you have any thoughts here. If you like it, feel free to move these over yourself, or let me know if you have any questions or comments. If I don't hear back I'll probably run this past one of the relevant WikiProjects on this subject matter. Hope to get your feedback. Cheers, NMS Bill ( talk) 19:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Supporting Information (PDF).Hi again, Shootbamboo. I mentioned last month that I was working on another article in the same subject area as Biomonitoring, and I've now finished -- it's a proposed rewrite of the Body burden article, which is now posted to my userspace. I believe the current Body burden article is a bit unfocused, places the wrong emphasis on some things and contains information which I think does not belong -- particularly one section which reads pretty much as straight advocacy. I've posted a careful (and lengthy) explanation of what I see wrong with the article to the Body burden Talk page, along with a request for someone else to make this edit, and I've also reached out to another editor who has been involved with the page this year. Let me know if you can help. Cheers, NMS Bill ( talk) 03:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any.
The BBC website had it as part of its "QI: Fact of the Day", which is linked to the QI website. If you're unfamiliar with QI, you can read the wikipedia article about it. It's likely to have been thoroughly researched. However, I couldn't find a permanent source on that one. I thought I'd put it there, hoping someone would find said source and be able to add it. I can fully understand why it was reverted (although it should be noted that death by whatever it is you reverted it to isn't referenced either!). His death needs to be referenced somehow, because otherwise dying by falling over a cow is no less plausible than dying of a heart-attack.
Alex Holowczak ( talk) 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I moved your comment on the debt to its own section because it appeared to be unrelated to the other comment in the same section. If this was the wrong thing to do then--by all means--move it back. If this is the case then I might just be crazy, but it might help if you made a more substantive comment so that the relationship between the two can be more easily seen. 018 ( talk) 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Office of Thrift Supervision at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JulieSpaulding ( talk) 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I got it from The Elements from Theodore Gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the argument that Iran used chemical weapons at Halabja is in such a minority of sources that it does not belong in the lead. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5JGldonhk6wC&pg=PA182. Please discuss this before adding it back in. Fences& Windows 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there
Noticed your edits to this article. I don't think it's a good idea to arbitrarily break a naming convention for reasons of readability, even when other sources do. We had a discussion at Talk:Tetraethyllead about that not too long ago. Could you reconsider? Take tosic acid, p-Toluenesulfonic acid, for example. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! You are marvelous. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya! I'm glad you like my edit-so-far - one of my favourite jobs on WP is making those small changes that can make a good article even better. Bedtime for me now, though. I'll do some more work on it over the next few days. -- Kay Dekker ( talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Added page numbers for you from the PDF file per your request.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 ( talk) 02:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
To help you, I also gave you more info from the actual congressional report (sourced to page 44) quoting the reporters who wrote the story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 ( talk) 02:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your helpful edits...the reason that last paragraph is so important is because it contradicts Krakauer's book...his book says Wilkinson gave the Washington Post "exclusive" access...however, the reporter in the congressional report directly contradicts that and says they had multiple sources...this is critical to make sure that Wilkinson's page is fair and reflects both sides...can you add that one back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.172.157 ( talk) 03:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be skillful at editing this article with a neutral point of view, so I will probably back away. My last suggestion was to try to connect this page to others by explicitly mentioning Wilkinson in articles on Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman and others, hence my orphan tag, which hopefully is temporary. Best wishes, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 04:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Jim Wilkinson (communications) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 21:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
On 15 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jim Wilkinson (communications), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a minor point, but my {{ content}} tag was over my assertion that Koch brothers should be in the #See also section. I can't replace the tag, per 3RR, but I would appreciate it being restored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with your revert on my addition to Gore-Tex. I'd found and cited a valid article that has history of material and listed different types of available material with their properties. Why do you think this is advocacy? I would appreciate if you change content to make it more neutral and make contribution more useful instead of deleting someone's entire contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sytelus ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you meant can't here. [9] — goethean ॐ 21:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shootbambo. Thanks for helping me get started. How do I respond to things that you have written?
I agree that Democracy Now! is relentlessly biased, so I think we should try to eschew those references. When we edit conservative things, we shouldn't go to the far left. Similarly when we edit left things, we shouldn't go to the far right. Am I missing something here?
Thanks,
Heinleinscat ( talk) 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shootbambo. Thanks for helping me get started. How do I respond to things that you have written?
I agree that Democracy Now! is relentlessly biased, so I think we should try to eschew those references. When we edit conservative things, we shouldn't go to the far left. Similarly when we edit left things, we shouldn't go to the far right. Am I missing something here?
Thanks,
Heinleinscat ( talk) 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey. You asked a question about something going on in an article discussion on my page. Then you reverted it. Was that an accident? If so, I'll just respond here for convenience. I'm in your camp regarding the passage about his brother's campaign. I may also have dropped a comment to this effect on the talk. I think we should report his support or persuasion of his brother's campaign to whatever degree our sources have it, and leave it at that. We should also probably link to his brother's article. And we can link something to 1980 Libertarian Party Nomination too. Information about the campaign or links to it can be better found there. - Digiphi ( Talk) 00:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Shootbamboo, can you explain to me what those + with the numbers are? ( Heinleinscat ( talk) 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
Hi, If there was something that looked like POV from my edits, feel free to move them. But substantively the changes I made were accurate. I pointed to valid sources such as 990 tax forms. Feel free to revise my edits by removing what you consider POV, but please do so without removing valid, supported information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catdown3 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point Shootbamboo. What research and/or citations are suggested to correct the edit so it complies with guidelines? Bluestarfish88 ( talk) 22:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Saw your comment on Wiki chemicals page. Alas, I try to do good. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Chzz ► 03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You were previously involved. Please see. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quantitative easing on a topic you have discussed before. You are invited to participate. Lagrange613 ( talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI there is one if you want to comment. Here CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Red Link Removal Barnstar | ||
For creating
Chlorfenvinfos, a
chemical that is used as an
insecticide and an
acaricide. Good work! ~~
Ebe123~~ (+)
talk Contribs 09:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)