Richontaban
|
Scale of Apparent Magnitude edit
Nearly one year ago, on October 29, 2006, the table titled Scale of Apparent Magnitude was deleted because the URL of the source could not be found. As of September 15, 2007, the table has been reinserted into the article, this time with a URL to Jim Kaler's THE 151 BRIGHTEST STARS. The fourth paragraph of Kaler's article provides at least some of the information and data shown in the table. I will personally search for additional sources (URLs) dealing with this exact subject and insert them onto the table. However, I perfectly welcome the contributions of other Wikipedia editers to the Scale of Apparent Magnitude data table, because I feel that this table would prove very beneficial to anyone curious about the various orders of magnitude and how they are distinguished from each other. --Richontaban 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a couple of weeks ago, the article about Police Phobia was deleted for lack of sufficient and reliable sources. I understand that phobias are "irrational fears". Is it possible for anyone to be irrationally fearful or afraid of the police, or even the brutally oppressive secret police? Of course most people do not fear the police or secret police, but if the circumstances and conditions in a person's life merit so, it is possible for that person to fear the police just as much as strangers or women, or light. Astynomiaphobia (Greek αστυνομια astynomia "police" + φοβία phobia "fear") is a sixty-seven (67) year old name for what is occasionally regarded as an irrational fear of police and law enforcement; it is not a neologism. Policophobia has been used more as an informal, vulgar and humorous term; its not really a scientific term. The composer of the article should have written that there is much debate and controversy over the existence of a specific phobia for police and secret police, and that only very few psychologist have conducted original research on astynomiaphobia and that only a minority of psychologists and psychiatrists actually use the term in their respective fields. Once psychologists conduct more original research on the "specific phobia" of police, and begin publishing their findings in books and on the internet, then Wikipedia can finally carry an article about Police Phobia or Astynomiaphobia. Of course if such a specific phobia actually exists in its own right, then it would probably add to the burden of the government's prosecutors, because defendants would be able to use astynomiaphobia (fear of police) as a defense in court under certain circumstances. Richontaban 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
THan you for your interest in wikipedia. Unfortunately your article is deleted. Please review wikipedia's policies about editing and creating new articles. In particular, please review the requirements of citing your sources, which sources are considered admissible and no original essays, please. `'mikka 00:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Antarctic Floristic Kingdom, was selected for DYK! edit
|
On October 10, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antarctic Floristic Kingdom, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
vaginal lubrication edit
What's with the edit to Talk:vaginal lubrication? Looks a lot like OR, and no-one appears to have asked about it. And the sources aren't particularly reliable. The whole thing looks kinda like an essay; my original reaction was to suspect vandalism or spamming the Spinrad book. WLU 19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- When I read the talk page on Vaginal Lubrication, I saw that many were writing sceptically about the presence of pyridine as a "toxic" and "carcenogenic" substance in vaginal secretion. Nobody seem to make a direct response to such people, so I decided to make as best a response as I could make, hoping to settle things. By the way, one of the sources was from gynecologist Dr. Elizabeth Stewart. Much of what I wrote was not original research. Richontaban 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, wikipedia is a how-to manual (incorporating answering questions) and talk pages are meant to be used to improve the main pages, not debate, discuss or respond to questions about the topic. Though there is a reference desk for that purpose. And the sources still aren't reliable, even if Dr. Stewart is a gynecologist. Plus, linking all that to pyridine would count as WP:OR. However, you do seem sincere, so I'll leave it on the talk page. WLU 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks WLU for informing me about the reference desk. I'll use it on a seldom basis to ask or answer questions from now on. Richontaban 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Calypsis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of significance. No citations; not referred to in any of the links. Nothing found in search.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)