I have moved your comment to talk:Polyphenol where it belongs. Please use talk page for discussions, not main articles. I hope Nono64 (an editor who specializes in this topic) will reply shortly. You may wish to contact him directly. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator, if this helps anything. Please discuss, avoid warring and reverting other editors. Materialscientist (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat: please use talk pages for discussion, not main articles. You will inevitably have your account routinely blocked for disruption with such attitude to editing. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - in the future, rather than putting a long discussion on the main article, just place a tag at the top of the article that is selected from this page (e.g. {{disputed}}). Then go to the talk page of the article (the discussion tab at the top) and explain your concerns on the talk page. This will alert readers to a dispute over the accuracy of the article, and discussion of the article's content can occur in the appropriate place.

I'm sorry if you saw User:Materialscientist's edits as being hostile toward you - they weren't intended that way. S/he was only trying to put your comments in the appropriate venue... As you can see, the article has since been edited (at least somewhat) in accordance with your comments. If you see any further problems with the article, I'd recommend pasting {{disputed}} at the top of the article, and explaining your concerns in more detail on the discussion page. (Or, of course, you could edit the article yourself if you have the time.) Thanks for your contributions. If you have any other questions, please contact me or ask at the help desk. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here would disagree with what you've written on the talk page about the importance of reading sources and choosing the highest-quality journals. Wikipedia has a variety of policies about reliable sources, such as WP:RS and WP:IRS. There is also the reliable sources noticeboard where editors can go for centralized discussion about the quality of sources. As far as principles go, I don't think what you have written on the talk page is different from existing Wikipedia best practices. Typically, issues such as the one you raised are best handled on an article-by-article basis as articles develop. In a typical article, you will see a lot of mediocre references early in its development; these tend to get replaced with higher quality references as time passes and the article is improved. (See also WP:IMPERFECT.) If editors see problems with specific citations, they can either raise concerns on the talk page or edit the article itself to fix the issue. In the end, I think it is just a matter of best practices vs. Wikipedia as a work in progress. If you examine featured articles, which represent Wikipedia's best work, I would hope that you would see better references being used across the board.

If you would like to contribute your expertise about identifying quality sources in a particular subject area, I would encourage you to develop a guide/essay with the relevant WikiProject (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry) so that others can benefit from your knowledge. (See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for an example of such a guide.) The general policy on identifying reliable sources obviously cannot include every possible consideration - it is always a matter of balancing informativeness with avoiding instruction creep. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another small thought: general appeals on talk pages to "get to work" (as it were) are unlikely to prod passers-by into contributing. If there is an article that you think should be developed, I would point this out on the talk page of the relevant WikiProject, where it is more likely to be seen by editors with an inclination to help, and explain there why that article should be a priority. (However, people often have their own pet projects, and there are more articles that need fixing than editors to fix them.) You are more likely to get other editors to work on an article if you too are working on it and propose a collaboration. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm not sure it is possible to resolve your concerns within the wiki model. A policy like "no errors allowed" can't work, obviously, because it is impossible to administer. And the more fiercely pages are guarded against changes, the harder it is to recruit new editors. "Anyone can edit" is part of the five pillars, as you may be aware. This model may be imperfect, but it has proven to be far more successful at generating good content than any other. (See also Citizendium, where emphasizing expertise has basically led to stagnation and bad quality overall.) Just as an empirical matter, this seems to be the least worst way of writing an encyclopedia using volunteers.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting to reading this. Thanks for taking time. The issues associated with the reliability of web-information are general, though I have to say, the issues with much of chemistry on the web are extreme to the point I cannot allow student to use wikipedia in any sort of formal class work. Web sources are good for an idea generator, and not much more. As for me, I generally take a run by wiki articles en route to the truly authoritative and reliable sources, but my training and experience allows me to tell the difference between what is likely reliable, and what is not. Vis-a-vis wikipedia work, my leaning, in the moment, is to get with colleagues, and PubChem staff folks, and wikigenes, and start over with the small molecule area, completely. (Not to minimize the work put in here, but there are fundamental differences of philosophy. All ideas/contributions/opinions are not created equal. The point of the experimental basis of the physical and related sciences is that there is a basis of observations in empiricism, and a failure to adequately review, edit, and source ones writing makes the articles less reliable than the worst research journals. And I give those no time at all.) Apologies for the pointedness of this. One only lives once. Need to make what one produces count. Meduban (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit contain so much more than expressed in your edit summary, which was

Removed new term of "natural phenol" as replacement for "simple phenol", because convolutes issues of size/complexity, origin. See talk at "Natural Phenol" article. Prof D

Would it be possible to actually explain what you have done at Talk:Polyphenol? In particular, you have removed several "citation needed" tags without providing the references. Why? Please note that "ibid", "see ref. 1" and similar notes are frowned upon in wikipedia (software dynamically changes reference placement meaning that such notes become obsolete after a few edits). Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of removing all of these things, so must have made a mistake -- inadvertently editing some earlier revision as starting point. Please feel free and revert to form prior to my work -- I do not know how, and haven't time this evening to try and learn -- and I will again try to introduce the very limited edit I attempted.Meduban (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explanation. I guess you have edited an old version of the article, and inadvertently removed changes introduced later by another editor. This happens. I have reverted your edit to restore those changes and thought to reinsert yours (changing natural phenols to simple phenols), but stopped - whereas I do understand your argument why "natural" is misleading there, I am not sure myself where the intended meaning was "simple", where "natural" and where both (like in "simple natural phenols"). Perhaps you or someone else who knows this field better should revise this. Sorry for inconvenience. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All OK here. Will look to the article again when I can free time. Cheers. M-EDMeduban (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your talk page posts on Gram positive bacteria and Bergey's. Both pages which do molecular phylogeny justice compared to others, in my opinion. I am trying to improve bacteriology articles and so far I have created Bacterial taxonomy and Bacterial phyla and going through/adding missing taxa. Unfortunately, in my experience, the accepted molecular phylogeny of bacteria is under-represented in wikipedia as many articles have a strong medical focus (grouping by traits and not phylogeny) and there are a few editors who fervently push for Cavalier-Smith theories. Just today I found that Last universal ancestor has been given a Cavalier-Smith spin. The worst one is Template:Bacteria_classification. Therefore, we are aware of the issue, but it is quite problematic. --Squidonius (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attention to this. Bacterial phylogeny understanding is demonstrably Woesian, especially since the rise of "whole bacterium" sequencing and gen- and the other -omics that such sequencing has enabled. A general scientific encyclopedia is not the place for anything more than outline of such most-important, preponderant models, of course with acknowledgment of persistent fringe disagreement (without elevating it to equal status). So, if you find edits and re-edits pushing bacterial phylogeny articles in directions away from the preponderance of literature opinion on the subject, even if in the direction of the esteemed Prof Cavalier-Smith (who indeed deserves continuing mention) -- certainly call it to others' attention.

As for the medical in molecular microbiology: We can't fault/challenge those predilections too strongly (though we have to supplement many descriptions in articles so leaning). It's only by virtue of the fact that there is pathology -- and human need associated with disease -- that we can justify the huge swaths of time and capital we apply to do our work. No, the medical fuels all that we do (even in my more removed chemistry), and so it is all the more humbling and critical that we set aside pettiness regarding "pet" ideas and theories, and move to get things right (consistent with nature, and with validated predictive models/relationships).

Ignoring for the moment the minor eddy of the "most research results are false" fad -- as with Heinlein on democracy, I'll stick with our approach until something truly better is proposed: It's simply true that chemical agents either are efficacious, or they are not (given precisely defined endpoints, and rigorously and carefully performed experiments). Efficacious agents are then either safe, or they are not (again, with the demand being, that endpoints be defined and experiments well performed). Of course complexities creep in when we actually have to make real decisions about use, e.g., when relative therapeutic merit for a substantially toxic agent must be weighed.

But that is a separate matter from people holding to and promoting ideas in the face of contravening evidence, just (and this is especially of concern in wikiworlds) because they can. Prof D.Meduban (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Carbohydrate conformation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dihedral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Hello Meduban, I lost my connection on IRC. I have contacted the decliner and will review your submission tonight. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the Macromolecular Assembly ‎you deserve real recognition for the article and it's research.More than just this virtual cookie but it's just here to show my appreciation for your work because sometimes it can seem not worth it and a Thankless task for sharing knowledge and sometimes more bother than it's worth but Thankyou. Wilbur2012(talk) 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meduban. You have new messages at IceUnshattered's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Meduban. You have new messages at IceUnshattered's talk page.
Message added 16:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to check out these WikiProjects, which focus on topics that may interest you. Add yourself as a member and include the project's talk page to your watchlist so you can stay up to date on new articles and discussions:

• WikiProject Chemistry
• WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology
• WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering
• WikiProject Physical Chemistry
• WikiProject Pharmacology

Thanks for the help! -Mabeenot (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meduban,

I shall be happy to skype with you. More via email. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meduban. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not too clear, is it? Put {{cn}} next to the offending text. This produces^{[citation needed]}. Please avoid putting comments in the articles directly. Your use of the talk page is complementry to the {{cn}}. Thanks for your contribution! Jim1138 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sent to wrong user. Please feel free to delete most content from your talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that people are reverting your edits without discussion. First, people are discussing them, in two places now, so that's just false at this point. More importantly, as you have been told at least three times already, you do not have a right to have your version prevail. Everyone is welcome to edit, but if anyone disagrees, they can revert. Your edits are clearly contentious, and at least three editors have reverted you. Editors have a perfect right to keep the status quo ante until someone has proved there a good reason to change. Therefore, you are the one breaking protocol by restoring your version before the discussion has concluded. You need to stop or you will end up blocked from editing. What you are doing is not helpful, constructive, or in any other way likely to improve the article. I assume your intention is to improve the article. If it is, then you will take my advice and stop being disruptive. -Rrius (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contending that discussion is taking place regarding the proposed changes to the Rubio "Personal Life" section -- that my argument is "just false at this point" -- misses the forest for the trees. I'd note that apart from a single, very recent post from Nomo... to which I immediately and accommodatingly responded (which suggested bias on my part because I use the word "Notably", and don't explicitly state references, etc.) -- there has been a marked lack of discussion of the actual proposed content changes. Instead, the discussion has focused on how process has been violated by not consulting other contributors before making changes. (My first offer of content came on 14 July; the first appearance of discussion of content was more than a week later, though the content was repeatedly rejected en masse, in the interim.) I believe my earlier representation that the Nomo... and others reverting my longer text versions back to the shorter were done without explicit discussion of content, even after specific arguments were made for content points, is substantially correct.Meduban (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Marco Rubio shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your last edit to this article and engage editors on the article talk page. I well understand that you have have posted to various noticeboards regarding this situation, but to continue to insist on your version of this article while discussion is ongoing will not serve you well. The content you removed was sourced and cited properly. Please self-revert immediately. Tiderolls 00:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Another editor has taken care of the reversion of your edit. Please understand that you will be jeopardizing your editing privilege with any further edits to this article. Tiderolls 00:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Marco Rubio. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Tiderolls 00:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Meduban (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would ask that if you are engaging in this matter, please do not simply take the word of an individual within wikipedia as to the nature of this conflict. Go to the relevant article talk pages, and then to the NPOVN pages linked from there. (I believe you have the wrong end of the stick, for lack of information.) As background, I am a res faculty member at a university; I write content in the sciences, and do not understand your wiki system/processes extremely well (nor have I time to). My editing is primarily in my areas of my science specializations. My editing of this biographical article began simply because I found that the short version of this Section made factual errors as to spouse and other names, etc., and then went on report so briefly on Mr Rubio's wife and on immigration stories that it omitted substantial published facts, both from the articles it cited, and in general. Note, I am not partisan in this (not a Floridian, and not politically active). I only want wiki to be an accurate, reliable, unbiased source of information. The expansion of this biographical Section's content aimed to correct facts and expand the spouse and immigration stories so as to be accurate to source material. My additions were reverted to the original without comment by another (Reversion A1, by party other than me). I found this contrary to practice in my areas of editing, and disrespectful insofar as no reasons were given. I then went into talk, and went to great detail to explain what I had written, and why, and then returned the expanded text to circulation (Reversion B1, by me). This change from me was again reverted without any engagement with issues, or response to things raised in talk (Reversion A2, by party other than me). This back and forth then continued, where in latest form I suggested just deleting the brief inaccurate section until the factual and apparent bias issues could be addressed. Notably, here, and whatever contributors "Nomo..." and "Rrius" are calling this, the points are: (1) The matter at hand is about a living individual, where my claim -- as an adult, professional academic -- is that the current text in place is inaccurate and biased. Per Wiki policy, it MUST be change or removed. (2) I have repeatedly stated and defended the substance of the changes (to correct and make accurate), whereas those reverting have essentially done so repeatedly, without discussion except to focus on wiki editing process violations, and not on the substance of the problems with the text. (3) Note, the reversions were begun by another/others, and I was simply responding, so in a "repetitive moves in chess" sense, they are one move ahead of me, and their reverting of the new content seemingly should have been stopped. (In fairness, it should not matter if several are taking turns reverting. The question is whether the text is accurate or not, and how to get to accuracy.) (4) When it became clear that we were not making progress -- the talk points I made were not being responded to, and the reversion to the inaccurate continued -- I took the step to enter this into the NPOVN process, etc. That is, though I am less senoir in working within and understanding your wiki process, I tried working within the system (while they simply reverted to the inaccurate biography, and remained disengaged from addressing the substantial questions raised). (5) Bottom line, I think: The section should remain out until the subtantial issues of its accuracy and bias are addressed by NPOVN or another route, and **I should be unblocked in the meantime.** (You are stopping my chemistry work for goodness sake!) (6) Finally, since I am blocked from communicating, I would ask you do an urgent consult with Calliopejen [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calliopejen1 ], who is a senior editor familiar with me and my position, continuing wiki questions, and character. Fundamentally, I believe you have the wrong end of the stick on this, should look to wiki policy on allowing flawed biography text to remain in place for living individuals, and should consider my status and contributions before allowing this to stand. Otherwise you are clearly siding with those who would use wiki rules to justify their lack of engagement, and so to maintain biased wikipedia content for a living person. Prof D. Meduban (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Amazing that such a request, bordering on TLDR territory, is so easy to review and write such a short response too. Tide rolls has it right and I need not add any more to this classic example of a justified block for edit warring. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• You were not blocked for being wrong. You were blocked for insisting on your version of an article while discussion was ongoing. Further, you had been reverted by multiple editors and persisted in removing sourced content after being warned not to do so. In other words, your chemistry work would be uninterrupted except for your actions. Tiderolls 01:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that gets the message across, because multiple editors telling Meduban the same thing and a block haven't done it so far. He or she seems to think that the rules don't apply to "Prof D". -Rrius (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I simply think that you need to be as fastidious about reporting accuracy for living persons as you are about the rights to editorial control granted you by wikipedia. I am new to this system, do not claim to fully understand it, and to the extent that I do, cannot say that I much believe in it at this point. In this case, in the ten days since I offered my first edit to this section -- in what I believed was a simple academic process of clarification -- there has been no substantive change to the section, and no substantive engagement in the points made regarding the content. Rather, the matter has focused on the violation of Nomo... and others right not to have their content changed without their agreeing. Wiki may grant this small group of earlier contributors the right to maintain the text as it is, but this does not make the content accurate, or unbiased. The fastidiousness with which the wiki process is safeguarded makes sense only insofar as it results in content which is accurate and unbiased (in my view).Meduban (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the usual prescribed response to such an impasse is either the third opinion process or a request for comment, although those usually are for very specific issues. For broader issues you might want to consider mediation. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this input. I have requested the senior, authoritative editors for the article (RRius, Nomo...) pull the paragraph on immigration until there can be true consensus regarding bias (see Marco Rubio "Talk"). A review of that entire section reveals that various voices appearing in past seemingly have been marginalized by 2-3 more senior voices, such that the content that Nomo- (in substantial part) originally created does not change. I am firmly of the view that there is latent bias here, elevating and distorting one matter by virtue of imbalanced representation (immigration) and diminishing a further innocent individual by creating, through brevity, a caricature (spouse). Again, let me make clear: It is not my aim to substitute what I have created for what appeared before (though I included essentially all that was already there). Rather, it is to come up with a text that is more balanced with regard to these two subjects. If we don't make progress though deletion and talk, I will move toward mediation and page protection, and any other recourse necessary to see that the current version and authors do not remain the only acceptable contributors.Meduban (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating this article. Please "inline" its references, that is, indicate which ones are used for certain sentences, in any way convenient - I'll fix the formatting. This is important - after next edits it will be impossible to tell what was referenced and to which sources, and what is personal opinion or vandalism added by forthcoming editors. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your response to my criticisms of your edits. It is wholly inappropriate to intersperse your comments within mine. It is also completely unfair to expect me to fix it, so I'm letting you know. The whole reason I numbered that list was so you could respond to each point by number. Doing what you did makes the whole thing unreadable, so if you want your responses registered, please do it without disrupting what I said. -Rrius (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you expect a new editor to be able to respond in your manner? There are many times where bulleted lists are crated and the response is made point by point in the list. I'll revert and reformat Medubans edits. Perhaps you can place your signature after your comments. Meduban, you should place your signature after each of your comments as well for clarity, even though you took every possible precaution to let people know it was your response. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ryan, I will do as you say.Meduban (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meduban! It looks as though at this point most of your questions to me have become moot, to use a legal term.... It looks like your MA article has made it to mainspace, and now you know that in the future you don't need to go through AFC to post new articles. As a general matter, I want to affirm what other editors have been telling you about the Marc Rubio article. Wikipedia has certain established processes that have proven over time to yield good results on the whole. Though in any particular instance they may seem unfair, these process rules apply to all articles and all editors. You cannot change an article over objections of other editors through edit warring. If you believe the people who maintain the Marc Rubio page are biased, you can do a WP:RFC to get broader input from a wider range of editors. Good luck, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]