I really dont think that you should have blocked the above user for edit warring. The whole issue arose from the disruption of one IP editor. Padraig did try and reason with him and did try and discuss the issue with him but his attempts were ignored and then deleted.

For this reason the IP editors edits and reverts should or could be classed as disruptive and vandalism especially as there were numerous messege left on his talk page to stop edit warring and to read the pertinent wikipolicies. Therefore Padraigs reverts should not count as it was combating obvious vandalism and disruption. In any case I strongly suspect that the IP editor is a sock whos sole purpose was to cause this disruption and they will see this block as a victory and will only serve to encourage this tactic further. You are correct Padraig did technically breach 3RR but I think in this case and under the circumstances a warning would be more apt.

Also as you can see from the messege that Padraig left on my talk page here he would have stopped reverting and reported him if he had known exactly how to - I take some of the blame for this as I was too lazy to report him in the first place and if I had then that would have saved some of the reverts. Anyway I'll leave it up to yourself. regards --Vintagekits 08:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that about four threads up on this page (User talk:Selket#Your three revert rule blocks) I was criticized for taking the action that you propose now, but the previous poster was right. The policy is clear. All editors in an edit war must be treated equally. The edits the IP user was making were edit waring and he/she was blocked for them. They were not vandalism (See: what vandalsim is not, particularly the last point: Unilateral policy/guideline alteration). The simple vandalism defense does not hold, if one user is blocked for violating 3RR, all must be. It really is not appropriate for admins to decide which editors were making the right reverts. --Selket ^Talk 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altough both broke 3RR they did not equally breach it so should not be treated equally. The IP editor reverted over 8 times against that or 3 other editors and Padraig did attempt to enter into a discussion - for these reason I think a block was not justified.--Vintagekits 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you and I both rob a convenience store, and you shoot the clerk, that does not mean I'm not guilty of robbing the convenience store. Take a look at [1]. This is simple vandalism and nobody was blocked for 3RR. Ddddddfs was blocked for vandalism. If there is an edit war (which Template:British Isles was) then everyone with 4 reverts gets blocked. Padraig has already requested a block review. I look forward to hearing another opinion on the matter, but I think most people are pretty strict on 3RR violations. --Selket ^Talk 15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've said my piece. P.S. did we get much loot in the orbbery?--Vintagekits 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you recently blocked this user as a result of vandalism. Since the block expired they have continued to vandalize, and don't appear to be doing anything else. Could they be blocked indefinitely? Thanks. --Michig 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is registered to Toyota of Great Britain and so may be shared. I gave a final warning, but he/she seems inactive now. If there is another act of vandalism, please post it to WP:AIV. --Selket ^Talk 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Barnstar moved to user page]

Thank you very much, Chinesepride. --Selket ^Talk 04:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll let you know if it looks like they're back. Notmyrealname 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's back: User:Lectron3. Just saw the Monjas page. Probably causing trouble elsewhere too. Notmyrealname 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, he's just been blocked by another admin (user:Merope). Don't know if there's anything else you can do regarding the ISP or similar names to the others you blocked earlier.Notmyrealname 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected it. --Selket ^Talk 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's pretty f'in cool. I love being able to post a vandalism warning without looking up shared ips. Good work! :) Wikidan829 15:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Selket ^Talk 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I overturned. Tankred was reverting changes made by a banned user (and had marked them as such) which is one of those specific 3RR exception thingies. Mangojuice^talk 15:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just be careful because most Hungarians are likely to share the same POV on those articles and there are very few address blocks in Hungary. --Selket ^Talk 04:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a question about this case. Surely the infobox associated with an article is not an article in and of itself? Per the edit summaries he clearly made all four reversions to remove "Takeshima" from the page because he felt it was POV. If we allow a user to split the page into pieces, and then make reverts based on each piece, the 3RR is largely moot. --Cheers, Komdori 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my additional comments on the case. It is a fine line that we walk sometimes. It does not appear that melonbarmonster created the template in order to avoid 3RR. I'm going to err on the side of assuming good faith this time, but I'll keep an eye on it in the future. --Selket ^Talk 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; he didn't create the template, it's been there for years. I guess he didn't know how to edit it directly at first to remove the term he didn't like.

Perhaps you'd be able to offer a bit of advice, too--in general I remember the warnings that we are not "entitled" to three reverts, but the 3RR does limit us to that. In cases like this, when an editor comes off his block for 3RR and immediately goes around to a set of other articles and makes his "quota" of 3 per day, is there anything to be done? Especially recently, I have been concerned that responding "in turn" and reverting would not be a good idea and have relied on (generally unsolicited) help from other editors to help make the group that will revert his edits for the day (in some simple cases like removing obvious categories).

It seems certain that tomorrow, yet again, he'll come along and make his three reverts. I'm not asking you to block him, I'm just asking what the best approach is. Can we treat the removal of sourced categories as vandalism? He doesn't seem to respond to requests for discussion. For example, on the Yoon Bong-Gil and An_Jung-geun articles, at least three or four editors have been fighting his undiscussed deletion of the "list of Korean assassins" category (he says inclusion would be POV) when it is sourced directly in the articles that they are both Korean and assassins. I try my best to assume good faith, but when he blatantly refuses to participate or create any discussion about his proposed changes, it's grows tough after a few weeks.

The week-long block seems to have gotten him to stop at his three for the day, but I want to avoid being accused of "edit-warring" if I or others help revert his three tomorrow... and the next day. --Cheers, Komdori 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that responding in kind is probably a bad idea. In situations like this, you want to make it as clear as possible that you are the good guy. Admins try their best but there are a lot of complaints so the easier you can make it for us -- in terms of drawing clear lines between who is behaving well and poorly -- the better. I would not treat the removal of categories as vandalism unless there is a very clear consensus on them. However, if there is such a consensus, it seems likely that the offending editor would violate 3RR while other editors could revert once each, thereby removing the problem. The best advice I can give you is to try to engage the other editor -- I know this can be hard. As for the 3 revert quota, you are right, and I tend to be a bit on the lenient side. Someone who reverts 3 times a day for a couple of days while ignoring attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page should probably be brought to WP:ANI. ANI is much better for dealing with complicated issues than AN3. But while the other editor is ignoring you, you should be posting on the talk page, trying to reach a consensus. Make it clear who is trying to reach consensus and who is just being disruptive. When two editors each revert each other four times in a short period of time while accusing the other of vandalism and 3RR violations, they both look disruptive regardless of who "started it". --Selket ^Talk 04:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my company was deleted because it did not meet WP notability requirements. Very shortly I will have a Library Journal review of our first publication and Newsday is writing a feature article on our publishing company and our local Long Island history books. Will this satisfy the WP Notability requirements? Kindest regards. MacDowell 09:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need more information than this. To which article specifically are you referring? --Selket ^Talk 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My company was deleted because it did not meet WP Notability requirments. In the next 2 months, Newsday will be doing an in-depth article on my firm and in July the Library Journal will post a review on one of our publications. Will this meet the WP Notability requirments? Kindest regards. MacDowell 11:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may. If there are references to non-trivial references in reliable sources it certainly won't be speedy deleted. Any editor can nominate any article for deletion through the AfD process, but references will usually get an article kept. If I deleted your article, then I can undeleted only if you give me the exact title of the old article. If I were in your position, what I would do is wait for the Newsday and Library Journal stories to come out and then post an article on Wikipedia that cites them. That will probably get around notability guidelines. You should also look at our conflict of interest guidelines. --Selket ^Talk 15:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. An AO block is, of course, the best one to use. It must have slipped my mind, because I almost always apply AO to IP blocks, especially to a six month block like the one I applied to this one. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warning. As you can see from edit - it was far away of accepted form. yes, I could leave formal comment on talkpage but thought that this edit obviously does not fit . Anyway, I'll take a note for the future.--Dacy69 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy help! Cheers <<-armon->> 23:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, sorry again. --Selket ^Talk 23:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -I just had a "WTF?" moment there. <<-armon->> 23:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing an interest in Estonia related issues. However, you seem to be wrong in assuming that similar edits from Estonia are from a sockpuppet or meatpuppets. One of the users you listed here seems to use an established Internet name. A little Googling will even reveal his photograph. It is highly unlikely, if not impossible that he is a sockpuppet of any long time Wikipedia user.

The issue here is something quite different; these Estonian editors are defending a national myth. I am therefore not sure, that these editors are committed to the Wikipedia policy of neutral point-of-view.

National mysticism is by definition, communication of falsehoods. People involved in communication of falsehoods view their actions by different norms. They see it as their moral right to suppress all other points of view. Often they are fully aware of the limitations of their views. This makes it unlikely that they will respond to any rational argumentation. (See also my uncivil comment here.)

In the last weeks we have seen a large number of unconstructive edits to Wikipedia by users from Estonia, including deletions and proposed deletions of central articles in the history of Estonia.

I do not think that these issues can be solved by the normal dispute resolution mechanisms used in Wikipedia. It is likely that administrative action is needed. -- Petri Krohn 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that you are right and everybody else is wrong or perpetuating a myth even if they have sources to back them up where has you often dont? How does going trough a full rights AfD process acheving deletion constitute vandalism? Your own neutral point-of-view can be put to question on the same grounds as you have repeatedly shown yourself to have strong dislike twoards Estonia and Estonians. --Alexia Death 06:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may recall, you added a "future buildings" tag to the Beech Ridge Wind Farm article several weeks ago. In point of fact, recent action by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, as well as action in the West Virginia legislature (which I have not yet included in the article) casts even more doubt on whether or not the project will eventually come to fruition. If you do not object, I'd like to delete the "future buildings" tag and replace it with a "current events" tag, which I think more accurately describes the current status of the article and the project. Thoughts? Cmichael 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections. Be bold! --Selket ^Talk 04:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no problem with boldness, and will go ahead and make the change. It just seems to me that tagging articles is a fairly serious matter, which deserves input from the original editor before the change is made. A matter of courtesy. Cheers. Cmichael 14:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have to decline this right now. Darcy's retirement as well as some other issues has struck a thorn in me right now. Thanks so much for nominating me.Real96 04:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, too bad for us I guess. If you ever change your mind, let me know. --Selket ^Talk 05:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you blocked Argyriou (talk · contribs) for 3RR. They and RicoCorinth (talk · contribs) have been feuding and having a long unproductive thread on ANI. It looks like both of them broke 3RR on Community Associations Institute and since I don't want to favor either side in the content dispute I will block RicoCorinth too. —dgies^t_c 16:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now you were acting on a WP:AN3 report. Please check those to see if the reporting party is also a violator. —dgies^t_c 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they were both behaving pretty badly, but by my count RicoCorinth only had three reverts. --Selket ^Talk 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you seem to have found it. --Selket ^Talk 17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported a 3RR complaint against this user last week, to which he was blocked for 31 hours. Fresh off his ban, he immediately started reverting the same part of the same article. Another complaint was made by another user, & you subsequently banned him for a week. Now, he's editing THE SAME PART OF THE SAME ARTICLE while on his ban, he's just not signed in. It's obvious it's him; if you click the IP address that's doing the editing (the same edit he was banned for), he's editing all the same pages that he was editing while signed in. He is the only one who thinks this edit is necessary or appropriate (everyone else, various users, have complained through edit comments & made complaints through the 3RR noticeboard), & his behavior is both belligerent & biased. If you take a look at his talk page, it is chock full of complaints due to his irritating behavior & uncited/unsupported edits. He refuses to engage in discussions -- I have left two comments on his page, both which he ignored in favor of continuing his rapid reverts & edits. It is obvious that engaging in discussion with this user is fruitless (he completely ignores all attempts), concensus means nothing to him (even though everyone else staunchly disagrees with him, he continues his biased treatment of the page), & that bans have no affect on his behavior (the second he comes off a ban, he continues his reverts; while he's on a ban, he makes the edits while he's signed out). Is there any way to block him from editing this specific page? (The page is Oasis, by the way.) It's obvious no amount of civil discussion or appropriate measures towards banning will sway his conduct on this site. Just look at his talk page, he adds nothing constructive to this site -- & he causes riffs due to his ignorance & with whomever he makes contact with. All he is doing is irritating other members who dutifully edit according to the rules, & treating this place like his own personal fansite. I, for one, am growing tired of it, & I know plenty of others are -- evidenced by the vast number of arguments on his talk page, his petty behavior, the disagreeances aplenty through edit comments, the complaints filed on the 3RR noticeboard -- the list goes on & on & on. Something a little more drastic should be done about him. Is there anything that could be done? ——Anthonylombardi 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Laurel Nakadate.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 08:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at your userpage and noticed somebody gave you a barnstar for blocking me? Proud of that?

You should stop by Talk:Goguryeo and Goguryeo related articles and see the havoc and incivility some of those Chinese editors are making, not to mention their general attitude is rude.

You should also note that Jiejunkong has been violating 3RR and doesn't seem to know about Wikipedia policies by posting tags all over articles and supporting deletion of Goguryeo-China wars for an irrevelant reason. I have chosen not to report Jiejunkong because I don't care what he does and I don't play at his level.

Since you have some knowledge about early Korean history, I am requesting help to stem sockpuppets, the incivility and bring the articles to some stability. I am extremely suspicious of numerous editors being sockpuppets because of their only commitment to Goguryeo and thats about it. Good friend100 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I proud of blocking you in particular? No, but I am proud of the amount of work I have put in at AN3. It actually does take some digging to respond to those properly. However, I do see how its naming you specifically could be in bad taste, so I've removed it. To be honest I don't really know anything about early Korean history, but I'll have a look. --Selket ^Talk 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please take a look? WP:AN/I#User:M.V.E.i. I added my view.

Best, Beatle Fab Four 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Selket, Please look at these 2 users VinylJoe and Illuminatedwax. They have been pushing and pushing to have these 2 engineers B. Katz and B. Grundman mentioned on every audio page. When I resisted to putting them on the Audio mastering page, Illuminatedwax opened up a case against me at the ANI. He accused me of disruption, personal attacks (for given him warnings on his talk page to stop doing that) and "misguided" use of WP. The other one VinylJoe has been literally making personal attacks accusing me of identity fraud and spam. He too added some nonsense at the ANI. They wanted me VANISHED. I can't find the case anymore so, I guess it's been dismissed as nonsense because it is. You know me, I maybe tough on crime but I am open minded. So, they insist that we have to put these engineers as references. In your view, do these 2 users appear to be making good faith edits? Please see their contributions. I am giving in to their demands because I see no alternative. What would you do and what do you think? Please let me know, as soon as you can. Thanks much. Your friend Jrod2 a/ka/a.Evinatea

I should point out that this user has already had me name-checked [2]. Illuminatedwax 00:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away for a while. Does this still need my attention? --Selket ^Talk 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - RobotG apparently had some defensive check to try to prevent abuse of category redirects. I'm not sure exactly what it was, and per WP:BEANS he was reasonably secretive about it. Do you know what it was, and has it been preserved in SelketBot? Just curious. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, if you don't want the answer to this question to be public, feel free to reply via email. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Selket,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.

Done --Selket ^Talk 23:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was trying to upload a new version of Phaser.svg to Phaser (effect), but the file was moved to the Wikimedia Commons. I couldn't succeed in editing, deleting or uploading a new version of that file. I was trying for at least half an hour, I'm giving up. I uploaded the new file here. Could you please update it at Image:Phaser.svg at Wikimedia Commons? Thanks, scoofy 08:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you had that frustrating experience. I won't upload something off the web unless I can verify the source, though. What was the error you were getting? Or if you send me an email from something@scp.web.elte.hu saying that you are the owner and that you release it under CC-BY and GFDL, I'll upload it from there. --Selket ^Talk 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one option in CC: Edit this file using an external application. However, when I click on that, it downloads a file called index.php containing the url of the SVG. I couldn't properly associate it with any program, if I associate it with Inkscape, it says it cannot open the php file. I tried both Opera 9.20 and IE5. I tried to upload a new version to CC, but then it says file already exists with that name, choose a new filename. So I gave up. In the SVG, the 'adder' is not needed before the allpass filters, that's why I removed that. If you give me your email address, I'll send you and email from scp@web.elte.hu. Thanks. scoofy 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you help me please? Or can you give any place where I can ask for help? scoofy 18:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Selket, I have been doing a lot of reviewing lately. I knew this idea was thrown by you once, but would you be willing to write a bot that would archive old reviews? It would be a huge help. Any questions, please ask on my talk page. Cheers! --wpktsfs 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to, but it may be a week or two before I can get to it. -Selket ^Talk 23:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Openmp lg.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You offered to write a bot for archiving editor reviews. Of course you didn't promise, but if you're still interested in doing it, I'm still interested in having it done. Shalom ^Hello 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. Please see the post two up. I will do it, but I'm swamped with programming work (for work) at the moment. I'll try to get to it this weekend, but no promises. --Selket ^Talk 14:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You recently place a {{uw-create}} on my user page regarding this article. I think you read the page history wrong, I didn't create the article, I just tagged it for deletion. - TexMurphy 06:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed right. My apologies. --Selket ^Talk 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Antonio_Carvajal_Salazar&diff=142819069&oldid=142796060

I didn't flag the article with db-bio because it was in Spanish. I flagged the article because it is about a medical student with a rich father. The rich father has done some notable things, but, so far as I can tell, the med student is just a med student. The article doesn't claim that he has done anything but be a med student from a wealthy family.Kww 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I returned it for someone else' review. --Selket ^Talk 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are calls for this template to be renamed GACReview, as GAReview promotes the confusion between a GAC review and Wikipedia:Good article review. See Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates for the discussion. Thanks. Epbr123 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The photo you added to Shenandoah Mountains on 12 July says "in Shenandoah National Park". But the mountains in SNP are the Blue Ridge Mountains. Shenandoah Mountain (singular, actually) is far from the park, across the Shenandoah River Valley, mostly in West Virginia. Can you reconcile?? Valerius Tygart 21:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selket

I was wondering if the template you created, {{Np-chem-sb}}, has been made obsolete by {{Nobel Prize in Chemistry}}?

There appears to be duplication in function. Perhaps it should be removed? --Rifleman 82 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be, but I'd go through the process since other people may have input. --Selket ^Talk 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Np-chem-sb, by KuatofKDY (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Np-chem-sb fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Np-chem-sb, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Selketbot functioning properly, because I and many other users tagged some SharedIPs. Thanks. Miranda 00:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I'll look into it. Thanks. --Selket ^Talk 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried this? ---> m:Toolserver/New accounts. Miranda 20:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GE Logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alx 91 01:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1983 Chicago White Sox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. I am notifying you because I see you have in the past edited the template. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like SelketBot hasn't run successfully for at least the last three weeks. I had thought there was a need for a bot to clean up redirected categories, not being aware of yours. Are you planning to fix it? If so, I'll defer working on my bot. --Russ (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:

• Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.

• The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.

• Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.

• Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list where you request an account on toolserv. I would do it for you, but I don't know C++/Python. :-/ Miranda 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you indef blocked this user in May as a sock of User:Gabeyg. I looked up the IP he gave us when he requested his block to be lifted (in May), and since it resolves to cable-63-135-11-194.dyn.personainc.net, I am enclined to think this might just be an unfortunate user (even if I am appalled that they crossed each other). Care to review the block again, since you prolly know more the case than I do? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, jpgordon's magic powers saved the day :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selket,

how can I contact you by email? I think that I found some serious errors in your OpenMP-Tuturial on http://kallipolis.com.

Please add contact information of your site! Thanks! Amin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.182.32 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

• Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.

• Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.

• Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.

• Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

• There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you pop up on my Watchlist. Hope all's going well, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Never done this before, but I think your drawing on the Homatropine article is wrong. It should have 2 methyl groups on the Nitrogen. Your drawing is just atropine with the ethanol reduced. I hope this is the right place to tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.91.246 (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the right place. I'll take a look, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that you can just fix it yourself. --Selket ^Talk 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. These infobox neuron are really good. However, I think they would be even better if they supported width change or a second picture, just as the anatomy infoboxes. I tried to include such in the article Hair cell. Is it possible to make that improvement? Mikael Häggström 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

• The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

• The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.

• Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.

• Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.

• Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GE Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks too late, you say? Not in the Julian calendar! Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

Hi. I found your page while looking for bot that redirects "redirected categories" automatically. I'm planning to run such a bot on id.wiki, I wonder if you can share the bot script. Thanks borgx ^(talk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the alleged copyvio on Aldersgate College, please note that as the website is done in Flash, the offending text is found by clicking the "Overview" link (center-left of the home page). The resulting text matches will match word-for-word. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]