Hello, Ialsoagree! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello Ialsoagree. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nutrition for Learning, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 19:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google news search and got the following result: No results found for "Nutrition for learning". I'm going to add a PROD, since the CSD has been removed twice, but I still fail to find any notoriety for this organization. ialsoagree (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the GNews Archives Search (it says "Try Google News Archives Search." below the "No results found"): 61 hits. Standard GNews search only covers one month, which is in most cases, if not always, not enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Regards SoWhy 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I will remove my PROD (if it hasn't been already). That archive link is not there when I do a news search (it is not below the "No resutls found" - it's also not along the left side bar which is probably why I missed it). ialsoagree (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just blocked a vandal you reported to AIV and I've seen you around doing a good job, so I wondered if you;d like rollback? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered requesting it, but honestly I've found that Twinkle has been sufficient for my needs thus far. I'll request roll back in the future if I think I need it. Thanks! ialsoagree (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I use Twinkle and rollback and I find it to be faster but I love Twinkle (even if it does allow me to potentially delete thousands of pages with two clicks!). Any time you change your mind, just ask and it's yours. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for informing me. The subject is rather extensive and it deserves a comprehensive article. I'm not sure if my qualifications are quite enough to produce such an extensive article fully by myself, but I'll do my best. I think, I can add a few things to the current short definition when I have some more time. Maybe other people will help too :) NazarK (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ye. Do add the tags. The philosophy of Dhatus is one of the fundamental topics of Ayurveda. It deserves more attention. I'll do my best regardlessly. NazarK (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ialsoagree. Thanks for the note on my user talk page. The Dogfighter (2010 computer game) article had been deleted by the time I read it, so I couldn't see what you had said on the article talk page, or look at the article further. That's a disadvantage of the speedy deletion process, it doesn't leave time for possibly reasonable articles to be discussed. But, I asked the deleting admin to restore the article, and he or she has done so. I'm letting you know so that you can submit the article to regular AFD if you still want to. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I did notice that the artist's article was undergoing an AfD, but that does not make the CSD A9 tag valid. For CSD A9 to apply, the artist's article must not exist, not "is going to not exist". The AfD has only been open for a couple of days and while I agree that the AfD seems to be headed towards a consensus to delete, I do not think it is a WP:SNOW closure or else I would have closed it myself. If the AfD is closed as delete, then the discography article does not have to go through an AfD as CSD A9 would apply then. There is no need to jump the gun and delete everything now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: And it was deleted like I said since as soon as the artist's article was deleted, CSD A9 would apply. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for looking over my new article (Salom Rizk). Could you be more specific about what kind of cleanup the page needs? I took care of the sections, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done, and I'm wondering if it's a style issue (too academic?). Let me know what I need to do. Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just took a look at the sections are a great start! I primarily added the clean up after reading a little bit of the article. In the initial draft, it seemed the first paragraph spent more time addressing the author's autobiography (IE. the book itself) rather than the author. It seems you've cleaned that up since though. If you'd like to remove the clean up tag, feel free to do so. I haven't read the entire article, but you may want to take a look at other author's wikipedia entries to see how the format of yours compares. Good luck, and feel free to contact me or add {{helpme}} on your talk page (followed by your question) and someone from the community should be a long to respond shortly! ialsoagree (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Let me know if you see anything else problematic. It's hard finding info on Rizk himself, since most sources are more interested in his book. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of almost all the Swedish and Finnish rank articles as well as articles related to Swedish military, and yes also including the Military ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces. Moreover, I am the creator of most of the images that are put on those as well. I am in the process of cleaning up by merging small articles, which I have created once upon a time, that have similar content into one for convenience. I have very little time to deal with this mess surrounding sudden deletion of my work ... please cooperate. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ialsoagree, The article is now deleted and you have nither allowed time nor respected the 'hang on tag'. I respectfully suggest that either you are a fraction less speedy with your actions, or that your new page patrol principles be rewiewed by more experience editors or admins.--Kudpung (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not deleted, and it can be undeleted even if it had been. You might want to double check your allegations before you make them. The page is here: Soldier ranks of Sweden. ialsoagree (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed very quick on the trigger - I was about to retract my statement above which was motivated by the red link.--Kudpung (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add, that according to the rules I apply when patrollig new pages, A10:

...does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. ;. (When the new title is a reasonable term for the subject, converting the new article to a redirect may be preferable to deletion.)

Nevertheless, we do all tend to interpret the rules differently :) --Kudpung (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's been demonstrated that the article contains information not already included in the one available (which would make it unmergable, since it's already there). I have specifically asked for such information to be pointed out in more than one location. To a person not particularly familiar with the subject, such a distinction is - I'm sure you would agree - not readily apparent. Further, if you have a problem with the CSD, you're more than welcome to remove it:

If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice...

I would say I'm only "quick on the trigger" depending on your interpretation of the statement. I try to be careful in my editing of wikipedia. When I make mistakes, I attempt to correct them before it causes any serious harm. So far, it hasn't been demonstrated to me that the CSD does not apply, and therefor I don't find it appropriate to remove. If you have information I do not have that suggests to you that the CSD does not apply, than it's your responsibility to remove the CSD (or provide the information so that someone else can). ialsoagree (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also try to be careful with my editing on Wikipedia, that why I do WP:BEFORE - always. I can see more than just one reason for keeping this article, but I am not the creator, and I will not remove your CSD template. I'll let an uninvolved party decide what to do next. My main concern at this stage is in not upsetting an extremely conscientious and mature editor. There are guidelines in NPP policy about that too.--Kudpung (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the CSD was not intended to be malicious and I have removed it. The article, as far as I can tell, has no reason to be in main space, but it seems that you are aware of reasons it should remain and I don't possess any reason to doubt you. However, your conduct, from my perspective, seems a bit condescending. It seems that rather than explaining why the CSD should be removed, you would rather tell me it doesn't apply, and then wait for someone else to point out why (IE. an admin). Even going so far as to suggest that I should be reviewed for placing a CSD on an article under the false assumption that it had been deleted! And yes, I know, it's a mistake. But for someone quick to site WP:BEFORE, it seems odd that you didn't bother to look and see if the article in fact had been deleted before you put such a statement on record. In any event, I appreciate that you are working to improve Wikipedia and wish to make no effort to distract from that process. But perhaps you could go ahead and take a moment to look back on the questions I asked both on the article's talk page, and the article's author's talk page, and notice that it was never answered. From my perspective, it seemed easier just to quote rules at me, then explain why the article was justified in meeting those rules. It might be easier, in the future, to simply justify a position (especially when the person has openly requested such justification) rather than just stating it. You might also make a few more friends that way. But that's just my side of seeing things, and certainly isn't the only way these events could be viewed - I openly acknowledge that. ialsoagree (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the ways one learns here on Wikipedia (and I learned the hard way) to avoid rubbing people up the wrong way, especially in cases of CSD tagging, are 1. To respect the fact the the encyclopedia is internatonal, time zones are involved, and most people do not work on it full time. Seedy deletions may be one thing, but speedy answers need some leeway. 2.To step back, and let an uninvolved third party keep or remove the tag. 3. To be reasonably sure of what I'm doing before tagging anything, and when I do, to use the right criterion. I'll admit though that in spite all the A's and G's, there are cases that must be deleted as quickly as possible, but the frustration is that there is a dilemma of choice in which of the criteria to use.

I'm not here to make friends, Wikipedia is not a virtual social networking service, although some tend to believe it is. I've been on this planet long enough to have all the real friends I need, and my work, by and large, here on the Wikipedioa and elsewhere is accurate and appreciated. I am certainly not here to upset people, or to throw my weight around, so I'll throw you an olive branch: let's be friends.--Kudpung (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is quite true, I have no disagreement to any of it. As to the latter part, unfortunately the situation has rubbed me the wrong way. Not for the fact that I might have been wrong, merely for the fact that how was wrong was the first thing I sought to clarify, and I still have barely the vaguest notion. In any event, Wikipedia is a big place, I hope you continue to make useful contributions, and I will try to do the same. ialsoagree (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the article, but under A7, not G11. One sentence that merely states a fact can hardly be considered advertisement. It would be best to err on the side of caution in the future, but in any case, thanks for all your CSD work. Leo 07:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your recent contributions to Cornell University and wanted to make you aware of my challenge, in case you're interested. —Eustress ^talk 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that actually, and it prompted my contibutions so far, we'll see if I can get to thirty! ialsoagree (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my talkpage notice. Didn't catch that when I wrote it quite a while ago and for sure didn't pay any attention to it since then. Best, TMCk (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! Cheers! ialsoagree (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Conversation at User_talk:Msrasnw#Regarding_In.C3.A9s_Alberdi, please feel free to leave a TB here).

Dear Ialsoagree, Perhaps I could bring to your attention the suggestions in New_Page_Patrol#Patrolling_new_pages that Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author.....A good rule of thumb is to wait until at least 15 minutes after the last edit before tagging the article. There is also the suggestion to First, try to fix any style problems yourself. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Per my response on your talk page, my edits appear to have met all those suggestions. Please assume good faith in the future! Only trying to help. =) ialsoagree (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A good rule of thumb is to wait until at least 15 minutes after the last edit before tagging the article." My reading is you tagged 10 mins after my last edit. These suggestions, and the ones to start early on the newpage list are put there to avoid annoying people creating useful new content. Assuming good faith and recognizing that tagging might be annoying to some are good things for us all to bear in mind. Best wishes and :) (Msrasnw (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding this revert, it sure looks like the change was correct that it was a dup. The revert-addition you made is underlined, the apparent duplication item is bold:

His evolution-related experiments and investigations led to books on Insectivorous Plants, The Power of Movement in Plants, The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom, different forms of flowers on plants of the same species, and The Power of Movement in Plants.

Could you take a second look and let me know if I'm missing something? DMacks (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seemed to have missed half the sentence when I read it, I have no idea how. Thanks for catching that, I've reverted my edit to the correct one. ialsoagree (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Happy editing, DMacks (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not removal of cited material. Check the characters removed variable; it says '+4'. All they did is separate one large paragraph into two paragraphs.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right, a simple mistake. If you've gone ahead and fixed it, thanks. By the way, +4 character's doesn't necessarily mean anything. Content can still be removed despite an indication of an increase in characters when other content is added to the article. ialsoagree (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When content is inserted as well as removed, yes, that is what happens. I wasn't the one that fixed it, someone else did. Either way, thank you for your reply.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ialsoagree. I was hoping you would clarify your edits to the above article as there is nothing really in the edit summaries or discussion page. I can see how the list with all the zeroes may look odd, however it is a template used across most Irish hospital articles. That list (which breaks down waiting times into certain categories) is also commonly used within the Irish healthcare system and is a useful way of displaying the data clearly rather than writing a prose piece which could look messy. I think it is also useful to have all sections listed as it is possible (nay, likely) that the numbers will change in the near future. I'm not sure what is wrong with the citation style. Is it simply where the ref no.s are placed? Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that that method of list was used across other hospital pages and should have checked. With all the 0's, it did seem a bit silly to have it in a list but your rational makes sense and so I will remove that template. As to the reference style, the references appear mostly as bare URL's. If footnotes are not going to be used, it would be much better to follow the manual of style for foot notes with the reference list. Hope that clarifies and thanks for asking. ialsoagree (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift reply. You can't check every page, so how could you have known!  :) I think it's useful to have uniformity as many readers will want to compare the lists (it's quite a big issue in Ireland). Agreed re: footnotes, just wasn't sure what the issue was. Thanks for clarifying and for adding the tag. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've declined your WP:CSD#A7 nomination of Peter Piel because the article does indeed assert importance, with a ref to back it up. Feel free to AfD or PROD it, however. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your speedy nomination and quick reversion and got a chuckle. Yeah, Twinkle's speedy deletion function has quite a hair-trigger, and it's gotten me in trouble at times, too.  :-) SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, finger slipped on my mouse and wound up clicking one of them. As I see the messages popping up "Notifying author... Tagging page..." I was like "oh no!" ialsoagree (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it could always be worse. When you're an admin, the default action is delete, which will unlink all the links, delete all the redirects, and then delete the page. Much more troublesome to undo. That's where I manage to get myself in trouble. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, then I'll count myself glad that I was not an admin at that moment. I think probably the worst part about the CSD is that it marks the page as patrolled. I'll have it in my contribution list though, so I should be able to find it and properly tag it later. Been trying to get the new page backlog cleared. Was on August 8th about 3-4 days ago, we're almost to August 14th now. ialsoagree (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref you posted are known as rumors in the media. This is why they were removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.230.67 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I didn't post the reference, the reference was a part of the article. Further, I don't think you've established your justification, unless you can evidence that the source isn't reputable. Finally, you should always post an explanation in the edit note, otherwise it appears you could be vandalizing the page. ialsoagree (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I could cite several pieces of evidence I just hadn't gotten to that yet. But you also removed the marketing add-ons I posted as well & those are available on T-Mobile USA's main site. Fierce Wireless & a few other sites had mistakenly called it HSPA+ 21 but AT&T stated it was HSPA 14 & so did many other sites. It wasnt till later that AT&T changed it to HSPA+ when T-Mobile USA began to air its I'm a iPhone 4 & i'm a myTouch 4G campaign advertising HSPA+ 21 network as the nations largest & fastest 4G network against AT&T 3G. Looking at wikipedia you can pull up the definitions of HSPA & HSPA+. It will show you that HSPA+ 21 starts HSPA+. 14.4 ends HSPA. Many phone specs that have a 14.4 chipset don't say HSPA+ 14.4. T-Mobile touted AT&T to prove it was instead faster via facebook but customers were not getting faster data speeds than those on T-Mobile. Which is the reason I put that T-Mobile HSPA+ 21 is faster than AT&T HSPA 14.4. AT&T couldnt even get faster anyhow because 14.4 is in Mbps of capable downlink speeds. As T-Mobile is 21Mbps of capable downlink speeds. If the networks worked at its max with the max chipset T-Mobile still would be faster. Till AT&T can get a 21 network like T-Mobile they arent faster at this time. As of theres no proof that AT&T has these areas covered. It such a concidence when after T-Mobile taunts you that you come out & say that you have the same speeds & are covering 250 million at the end of this year just out of the blue. Theres actually no evidence & sites have wrote this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.230.67 (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I actually agree with you. From what I understand, the AT&T network is larger, but also slower. However, regardless of whether or not that is true, it would be inappropriate to remove sourced material that says otherwise without sourcing what you intend to add. Without a reference what you're saying is merely original research and isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. ialsoagree (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK next time ill provide refs & document in the notes. Viper Matrix Wireless (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be glad to know that I have been practicing my wikiskills by going through the tutorials you linked to me. Thanks for the help. Athefitz (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that those resources have proved helpful. If you ever need help please feel free to let me know! ialsoagree (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]