My time... Do I work, or do I sleep right now? Welcome on my talk page ! - Thursday 13 February 2025

Archive 2005 - 2011

Hi -- just to confirm what you ask about in the santorum discussion -- the effect of SlimVirgin's proposal would indeed be to delete the current article, with no redirect using the current title. A small portion of the existing text would be added to a different article, but the current one would in effect be deleted, with no redirect. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the note.

I believe, that this is also matter of debate. As I know the debate on the wiki, the outcome might be slightly changed, just acording the prevailing consenssus in the discusion. So to point out, that I disagree with the deleting the redirect is just the first step. I wonder if some other commentator will notice and put it further.

But I basically believe, that the phenomenon should not have this particlular title, I can basically see that this phenomenon happened and is more or less noteworthy. To merge it in the thereinmentioned article seems just fine, but I might even agree on this original article, - under the condition, that the title would be more preciselly descriptive in regards the phenomenon. Well, is the word Santorum_(neologism) really the right title for this? I tried google out at least one instance where anyone would use it in it's new meaning. Some (offending) images for instance or anything in the talk of LGBTs etc..

What do I mean by this? Just that the word itself is absolutelly not noteworthy et all, it is not used and even if it would the word itself would belong to the wictionary not to encyclopedia. This would be not encyclopedic content et all. What makes it noteworthy is the relationship between the new word with it's intended meaning with the personality of the said senator and all the story around him and Savage. Wikipedia should not create virtual reality, it should reflect and mirror te reality as it exists. The fact of word being created is true and the publicity of the fact is true too. But the word itself has no importance per se, so why would be Wikipedia just the wehicle to promote it's existence beyond the reality? Already now, the google links show of, that Wikipedia creates it quite a bit.

So in my opinion, redirect should not be deleted, but if this scenario is to happen, I see it less encyclopedic harm than the status quo.--Reo ⁺ 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I love the stylesheet you have on your Talk page. Honestly, as I say in the explanation below my comments on the Talk page, it wasn't a personal attack, but trying to demonstrate the negativity of the words we're discussing. I don't think Discussion is being killed, we have a LOT of editors who are trucking along with comments and input, but I don't want people to fool themselves by thinking this term is not offensive and negative. We have a responsibility to do our best on an article like the Santorum one, we affect real lives here, not like the article about Twinkies where no one gets hurt, we can potentially do incredible damage. We're not simply talking about one man's life anymore, but his children and anyone else who happens to have the same last name. The way we frame the article here at Wikipedia has a lot to do with how this is perceived in the world. People turn to Wikipedia for reliable information and look at Wikipedia as a reliable source itself. Simply playing fast and loose and without regard for how our actions work in the larger society is irresponsible and reckless. Again, its not a personal attack, just working to help others understand this more deeply. -- Avanu (talk)

Thank You!

I know, I know for sure. Really. But that is just the purpose of the POINT, that you should not demonstrate the bad implications of something by doing it. In fact you were not uncivil in your intentions, but in Czech Wikipedia You might got block just for cs:wp:NEKIT alone - that is wp:POINT here, that is for disruption of Wikipedia.

Doesn't matter :) right. It seems that ⌘macwhiz is not ofended and discussion is moving forward. :)

By the way, in the context he did made the comment, he was just making things stright. That the santorum was not codyfied for the slang there, but it was rather impersonification of Santorum to get the block... that is irrespective of whether santorum now got or did not get horrible meaning or irrespective of ⌘macwhiz's stance, that was just clarification whether argument of wnt might aply there.

Just me, I am not sure how to folow to respond to Gaccur now, because, there is so much of the text in between now, and it feels as if the discussion I had with him, was just diverted out. I can not just easily start it over and at the same time I feel the arguments of him were not right, but as long as I do not respond so it looks like it is just right and dead. I took quite an effort to write my arguments there above and I still think it is right, now it looks like wasted..--Reo ⁺ 09:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Awarded for debating a difficult and divisive topic with intelligence, class, and civility, and being part of the solution, rather than the problem. JN466 21:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very proud to get this one! Big thanks from --Reo ⁺ 11:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the santorum title/question/answer anomaly. Carbuncle should change the section title as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks for feedback Reo ⁺ 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reo On, as the editor who put together the talk page summary for the ongoing "santorum" article talk, would you consider an update to bring it up to speed on current content? I'm attempting to establish some credible consensus on several issues and your "summary" might be helpful in that regard. If you're not so inclined, perhaps consider a deletion? Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JakeInJoisey, thanks to very kind proposal...., I think I created the summary just for that purpose and it would be nice to use it for it. Nevertheless, right now I am in the midst of writing crisis for my PhD thesis. I am supposed to submit it erly next weak and for good. I will be useless here for a time. Please do not hesistate to update it, be bold and redo the summary completelly, to fit your vision and your taste. It was meant that way from the begining ( I "advertised" it that way too), I wondered, why no one except me (and one single edit of someone else) did try to update it. I thought, probably, the summary is not that helpfull idea as I wanted. I think some summary of accepted points and in conensus, in this stage might be very helpfull. If I would have the time, I would use the floating box, to link from it to the closed debates in the archive too. Nonetheless, please do as you see fit. :). See you in twoo weaks (if the debate will be still ongoing). Reo ⁺ 08:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The edit page for the template looks daunting to me and I don't think I should mess with it (though I might). That being said, I'll just leave it there for now and you can see what's transpiring upon your return to the article. I can assure you, based on the slow pace demonstrated thus far, the issue will still be ongoing in 2 weeks time.

I'm sure you'll be re-enervated upon the completion of your thesis...and good luck with that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am straightening it out. Will put the basic content at the level of membrane. TCO (Reviews needed) 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Actually it was the very original situation. I do not understand, why anyone wanted to separate it from the level of membrane to the (selective barrier) level only. (Or I think I do, but i do not agree with them, I think the reason was, that formally the DAB should not have any explanations in them). Reo ⁺ 15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...it is sad how snarled it was. I appreciate your thoughts to get it fixed. We can't leave it the way it was. It had all kinds of circular confusion and the like. I wanted to write an article on expanded PTFE (the Gore invention in Gore-tex) and then I just found how confused this space was. I did get polymer membrane deleted because it had zero content and the section in artifical was better. And there were wierd things with talk pages going to different articles from what they were the talk of! I'm not any evil person...just trying to make this whole thing make some sense. I think how snarled it is discourages people from working in here.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Biological membrane and cell membrane is confusing also.  :-( TCO (Reviews needed) 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I see :). In this case the confussion is already offwiki - brought here by unexact deffinition of the terms, by unexact thought processes. See please my reaction in biologiacal membrane talk page. Reo ⁺ 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use your biology smarts please? I am working on Fluorine towards an eventual Featured Article Candidacy. (Still some basic research going on, a month out from Peer Review and then a month out from FAC).

For the few plants that make fluoroacetate (or other fluorine comounds), why do they do so? Is it to TRY to kill animals that eat them (this does happen) or is that a byproduct and they just want to bind up the F to keep it from affecting their Ca regulatiuon?

Same question for microbes that make fluoroacetate? Why do they do it?

What about these few plants that make fluorinated fatty acids. Why? (what biological function is frovided, I know there is not a conscious decision!)

Why is fluoroacetate a poison? It is not an ionic fluoride, but has stable C-F bonds so would think the mechanism of poison would be totallhy different from NaF.

P.s. I realize maybe you have to look some of this up.

TCO (Reviews needed) 15:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm interesting question. Sorry for replying this way, but I don't know directly right now and unfortunatelly I am spending the time on Wikipedia now just a margiannally and I shall be working right now on my report for the grant agency. Hmm maybe,... might you repeat the question, if still relevant, about two weeks later, just to remind me? I will try to look into this :). Have a good time. Reo ⁺ 15:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Go get funded!!!TCO (Reviews needed) 16:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we’ve been running a research experiment with SuggestBot and would like to ask you some questions about Wikipedia and SuggestBot. You can find more information and the questions on this page. It should take less than ten minutes to respond. We would greatly appreciate if you had the time to participate! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just stopping by with a one-time reminder that we would really like to hear from you! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I agree with you: AGF would have been a better choice here. Thanks for catching the slip. Widr (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:-), ok. Have a good time. Reo ⁺ 14:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit, I added the table to the Lach dialects article already so if you want to fine tune it more feel free - filelakeshoe 12:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my pleasure :). For the purpose You showed me- it sems that the word to word translation is better here. (although czech people would not use the formulation v širokých rysech, they would sey analogy to generylly speking, its better to leave it be now, I think). Have a good time. --Reo ⁺ 13:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure that out either. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) ... probably some of the anons I reverted lately. ok, thx :) --Reo ⁺ 19:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you translate this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceism to čeština please? Ahmadce (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind: deleted as spam and a bunch of other things. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]