User talk:Yilloslime/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Aquygen

sure seems like a water powered car to me... or is it that it only derives part of its power from water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs)

The problem with your edit to water-fuelled car is that it was totally unclear what the new section was talking about. Terms like "oxyhydrogen," "HHO," "magnecules," and "magnegases" were introduced without explanation or even so much as a wikilink; a reference was made to someone named Yull Brown in manner that assumed the reader was already familiar with who s/he is; and a mysterious reference was also made to torches. Furthermore, there where spelling and grammar errors, poor formatting and sentence construction, and footnotes that pointed to absolutely nothing. In short, it was such a poor addition that I couldn't even tell what it was talking about. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you asked why I removed it. Maybe "Aquyen" is, in fact, totally relevant to the topic of water fuelled cars, but withouy it clearly explained and without references, it's impossible for me (or, I'd imagine, most anyone else) to tell. If you think it is relevant, then by all means try to rewrite the section clearly and with references, or bring it up on the talk page and see what other editors think or if they'd be willing to rewrite the section. Yilloslime (t) 02:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. In fact, I did just cut and paste from Oxyhydrogen. I'll take another pass at it the talk page when I get a chance, and ping you for a quick look. They're another company claiming a (partially) water fueled car, making the usual wild claims> Their product is only a partial hydrogen fuel derived from water, but it certainly seemed to me to belong there. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Poor Yull Brown. I tried to write an article about him one time but everything about the man has been removed from history.

He was a Bulgarian physicist. The soviets put him in a box where he could only sit. He managed to escape to the US. He then wanted to gift his discoveries to America as his gift for rescuing him. First hydrogen fuel enhancement later he powered cars with the implosive properties of the gas. Brown made 1860 litters of gas from 1 litter of water. So the implosive reaction was 1860:1 almost a perfect vacuum. Nothing could convince people, he drove around in a mobile home. He eventually gave up on the car. He said arabs have plenty of the oil to sell. Who wants the gas generator? He moved his research to arc welding and found a way to transmute nuclear waste. Then he was warned to stop all his work or be murdered. He found his house was covered in uranium dust. But he was already to late. The health department and the US department of energy did everything to shut him down but eventually claimed they quote: "had seen nothing!"

Aquagen is Browns gas but browns gas is not Aquagen. Browns gas may contain water vapor droplets of water H & H2 & O & O2. It comes in a lot of recipes. Aquagen is one such recipe. I think you can find sources just as easily as for Dad Garrett's car, Stanley Meyer's cell.... lol Take this for example:[[1]] Here you can buy a whole video of the man.

  • DVD: Browns Gas Demos (90 Mins) $17.99
  • DVD: Browns Gas Presentations & Workings (45 Mins) $17.99
  • DVD: Browns Gas Shop Lecture (90 Mins) $17.99
  • DVD: Yule Brown Interview (60 Mins) $17.99
  • All 4 Browns Gas DVD's Only $69.99

You get something next to useless like:[[2]]. I'm happy there is at least some matterial but... it's pretty sad?Go-here.nl (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you review this for me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxyhydrogen&oldid=231057866#Dennis_Klein_Aquygen
Are the terms sufficently described in your view?
Thanks,Gdewilde (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've moved much of the material to water-fuelled car, where I think it fits better, and also trimmed and tweaked a bit. I removed the section on Santilli, since I did not see how it was relevant. Hopefully, we can all be happy with this. Yilloslime (t) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gibbs free energy

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water-fuelled_car&oldid=221847563

You removed referenced content which provided a scientific model for the operation of a water powered car. Archie Blue of New Zealand developed a low powered water fuelled car; no fraud was ever alleged.

http://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.153.97 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The content I removed was unreferenced and promoted original research. Furthermore, the thermodynamic argument about ΔG and ΔS that was advanced in the edit was incorrect. Yilloslime (t) 03:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Hello Yilloslime. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Yilloslime/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff WriteRead 17:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines fleet

Hi there, I have been involved with Singapore Airlines articles for a year now, and have been trying to deal with Huaiweis ownership of these articles. He refuses to abide by concensus and has refused to participate in 2 requests for mediation; the first because he claims he was without internet access, although he was still editing for sometime before the closure of the first request, and the second because he flat-out refused to participate, even though all other editors were quite willing. He even asserts his ownership of related articles by claiming that to add improvement and dispute tags to related articles you need concensus to do so by talking about it on the talk page (in other words, you need his permission), and his reverting on Singapore Airlines fleet is more proof in the pudding. I would suggest nominating it for AfD again, as the article protector/owner/call-it-what you will claims that it is verifiable, and he will be forced to answer there. Also, note that two of the sources are fansites, they are not reliable sources. It is claimed that the fleet is notable, due to google results for Singapore Airlines+fleet, this is ridiculous to base notability on that alone, as it needs to be demonstrated that entire books have been written on the fleet itself, and to my knowledge, there aren't any, as the subject is not notable. If you take this to AfD, I will definitely weigh in on this. P.S. I have added consolidated tags to the article. --Россавиа Диалог 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As I'm sure will come as no surprise to you, I continue to believe the fleet itself is entirely non-notable, and the article is mostly original research and should be deleted per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and other policies. Furthermore, I agree that the sites listed as "references" seem to be fansites/self-published and thus fail WP:RS. And as far as I can tell, these "references" don't actually have any of the info listed in the article's tables. So i would definitely vote delete if it's AfDed again. I also agree that Huaiwei's behavior here is unacceptable. I'm particularly galled by how he's accused me/Butterfly0fdoom of incompetence[3][4], while refusing to even acknowledge that I've asked him to put his-money-where-his-mouth is and show us where the refs back up the content: User_talk:Huaiwei#five_sources and [5]. So I'd be up for commenting at a user-RfC or something like that. I don't, however, think I have the energy or interest in starting either an AfD or RfC. Yilloslime (t) 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

CFACT

Hello Yilloslime.

The entries for Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) were better prior to the addition of funding information that goes beyond an appropriate Wikipedia entry and into the realm of point of view advocacy.

The CFACT entry should give an unbiased overview of the organization. Overemphasizing individual contributions is an attempt to unfairly color the reader's opinion. See, e.g. entries for World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, etc.

Organizations do not ordinarily have their funding featured with such prominence. Usually there is no or minimal entry on funding at all. Nonprofits must naturally raise funds. What the organization does should be the focus.

CFACT's entry should rather provide an overview of the organization and its initiatives. CFACT's activities should likewise not be cherry picked for the purpose of creating a negative impression with the reader. Any opposed to CFACT's point of view should not use Wikipedia as a tool.

I'm refraining from editing again at this time so as not to get in an editing contest with you. Why don't you rather roll the CFACT entry back to perhaps the April 3, 2008 revision and add in the bio on Paul Driessen? Such is more in the Wiki spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.79.116 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your editing of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ([6][7]) is that you removed large amounts of content from the article without giving any rationale in either your edit summaries or on the talk page. Regardless of your intentions, if you don't explain why your are removing content, such actions will almost always be perceived as type of WP:Vandalism commonly referred to as Blanking. Thus my warnings on your talkpage. You are welcome to improve the article as you see fit, but in the future remember to justify any potentially controversial changes by either leaving a message on the talkpage or using a descriptive edit summary. In fact, it's a good to always leave an edit summary, even for minor edits. And don't forget that even when you leave rationale others may reasonably disagree and revert back--that's wikipedia.
With regard to the arguments presented above for removal of the information: most articles on NGOs have information on funding and there is no reason I can think of as to why this one should be any different. And while you may feel that "Any opposed to CFACT's point of view should not use Wikipedia as a tool," this directly contravenes the wikispirit of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Finally, Driessen already has an entire article devoted to him, so there is no need to recapitulate his bio on the CFACT page. If you want a few more details on him on the CFACT page, that would be fine, but I htink anything more than a line or two would be overkill. Yilloslime (t) 00:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. A line or two on Paul Driessen is sufficient as it documents his role with the organization, and then links to his specific article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.79.116 (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion

What is your problem?

Gdewilde (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that:
Please help @ talk:water cap.
Thanks,
Gdewilde (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hi Yilloslime. It looks like we may have a sockpuppet operating at Africa Fighting Malaria. As a "recently involved" I thought I'd give you a heads-up. I'm not au fait with the procedure for reporting suspected sockpuppets (it might be too early at this stage), so would welcome any assistance that you can offer. At the moment I'm at my 3RR limit on the article, so can't undo the spam additions to it. Best regards, --Plumbago (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of looking into this, and have blocked Greenerapples (talk · contribs) as a fairly obvious alternate account created to pursue an edit-war. I've blocked Pcoticelli (talk · contribs) as well, for 48 hours for edit-warring in the setting of a COI as well as what appears to be the inappropriate use of a sock/meatpuppet account. MastCell Talk 16:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You are a true prince. Yilloslime (t) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines formal request for mediation

Hi, as previous attempts at gathering concensus in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article have not been successful, I have now instigated a further request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. As you have been involved in editing this article in direct relation to the various disputed issues and/or have been active in discussion regarding these issues on WP:AIRLINES, previous dispute resolution attempts, or on the talk pages, I have added you to the involved parties list, so if you agree to participate, please sign your acceptance on that page. Thanks --Россавиа Диалог 00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"POV" edits

My edits to Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, and Brian Williams were not vandalism. They are verified facts that were sourced by me. Just because you may like the people does not mean they are not liberal. The majority of people in America agree that they are liberal, and the MRC has the info to back it up. Mr. Kruzkin (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

user:avsav

Think he's Andrew Vavrek from the Resonance Project? He's a nifty musician, and their web master.

http://theresonanceproject.org/personnel.html


http://www.vavrek.com/gallery/vavscreens/vavscreen20060514_wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

COI, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on these links I don't see any evidence that avsav = vavrek. Is there any other evidence? I also see no evidence of Tryad meeting notability requirements. Should probably be PRODed or AfDed. Maybe I'll do it. Yilloslime (t) 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Just AfDed Tryad... Yilloslime (t) 04:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

California Graduate Institute

Hi, I removed most of the junk from that article and pulled the tags you placed. Do you think anything else needs doing to clean it up?? THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks a lot better. I made one tweak. thanks. Yilloslime (t) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Relisting AFDs

You're not wrong on the matter, which is why if there's the nom and one other person agreeing on it being deleted i often delete it. If something is relisted twice and still doesn't have any input I do delete it as well. However, I have been called on, almost ironically, not relisting enough. I try and limit relisting unless necessary, though others are more lenient on relisting. I see your point, I just figure if I close an uncommented one as delete I will likely be questioned by someone on why there was no relist. There's no real policy on when or when not to relist, just basically common sense, I guess. Wizardman 19:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

oxyhydrogen

Oxyhydrogen is used by scam artists to sell fuel devices and welding machines that are very expensive. Good job to you for allowing a silly unencyclopedic article in general and then censoring my comments. Exactly why Wikipedia sucks. Unscientific people like you allowed on here. Step by step a loss of credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Eric, I agree with the general sentiment of your edit[8], but it was written in a highly unencyclopedic tone, which is why I removed it. See WP:NPOV for a general discussion of this issue. If you can find a quote in a reliable, 3rd party source that says essentially the same thing, then you incorporate that into the article, and that would get the same idea across, but in a manner compliant with WP policy. Yilloslime (t) 20:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Good friendly reply. Thanks. I sense your not biased like other mods. But that page is filled with quacks. Anytime you add an edit there on their nonsense then you are attacked. Thanks. --Ericg33 (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

I've advertised your /Questionable Sources page at WP:RS/N - it looks like Tom harrison (talk · contribs) is attempting something similar at User:Tom harrison/unreliable. MastCell Talk 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. The more eyes the better. Yilloslime (t) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, for your edification: the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons on the topic of leprosy. MastCell Talk 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

  • [Barnstar moved to user page]
Thanks man! I appreciate it! Yilloslime (t) 16:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Problem on a page you protected.

I've taken a look at it, and I'm not sure what text is missing. The page currently says:

and it used to say...

The only thing missing is the "Find out how to revert ...". Is that what you would like me to add? - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I missed that. I've made this change. Does that sound okay to you? - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies re. Bisphenol A article

My apogies for accusing you of vandalising the primate research on Bisphenal A. I did not see initially where you had placed the section until Rifleman pointed out my error. And thank you for expanding the references. Cheers.John Moss (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No sweat! Yilloslime (t) 17:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein

Hey Yillo, saw your comment on MastCell's talk. Read the statement more carefully -- "None of Haramein's work has not been peer-reviewed" (emphasis added). Get the joke now? ;-) Cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Doh! I can't believe I missed that. I just fixed it over at the page[9]. Thanks!!!! Yilloslime (t) 04:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

more fun, check out:

Hypotheses_of_consciousness_and_spacetime AfD this nonsnse. talk:Elizabeth_Rauscher Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be a good time to AfD Elizabeth_Rauscher as well...Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I'd love to see some verification that she has a PhD from Berkeley, worked at LBNL, etc. Someone should do a webofscience search on her to see what papers she's published, and then look up those papers to see what her academic affiliation is listed as. I'd do that right now, but I don't have webofscience access. :-(. Yilloslime (t) 18:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

California Graduate Institute

I would highly advise you to present contact information for this matter to be discussed. Though you may have the necessary tools at Wikipedia, you have abused them. Present yourself and your facts. It won't take long to shut your falsehoods down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.28.176 (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

DDT

I do not like edit wars. I have left a few comments on at Talk:DDT. If I can create an article about DDT in New Zealand surely the US deserve one? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like them either, and I will not revert again today. I replied over at Talk:DDT, so I won't repeat myself here, except to say that I think maybe a compromise that we could both could live with would be splitting a DDT (molecule) page out of the main page. Yilloslime (t) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
So what do you suggest I do with my DDT in New Zealand page? Merge it into the DDT article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fine as is. The point I was making previously was that the American experience is central to the global history of DDT: Silent Spring and Rachel Carson "happened" there, some of the initial observations about DDT's impact on the environment were made there, and the US was one of the first countries to ban it. Understanding the New Zealand experience, on the other hand, doesn't really help one understand the greater DDT story, so there isn't (in my mind) a compelling reason to include that material in the main DDT article. And length considerations could argue for keeping it out. DDT in New Zealand is a nice article that I think stands on its own very well. It might make sense to merge it with Environmental issues in New Zealand or somesuch page, or Pesticides in New Zealand if that page gets created, but in the meantime I think its fine on its own.
Why don't you like the idea of a DDT (molecule) page? I think such a page would present a nice opportunity to expound on the chemistry of DDT--a notable topic, but one that I think most visitors to the main page probably aren't that interested in. Yilloslime (t) 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi, I've nominated an article you created, DDT (molecule), for consideration to appear in the Wikipedia:Did you know section of the Main Page. You can see the hook I created for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on September 19 where you can improve on it if you'd like to. --Bruce1eetalk 10:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, my nomination was rejected, which was my fault: I didn't release that DDT (molecule) was split off DDT, which is an older article, making DDT (molecule) ineligible for DYK. Sorry about that. --Bruce1eetalk 13:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

water-fuelled car: definition

Hey, I noticed you reverted my edit. I started a talk page section, I'd like your input. Thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied over there. BTW, I do think the intro needs a rewrite, and the scope needs to be clarified, and/or the title needs to be changed to reflect the actual scope of the article. And while, IMHO, your change expanded the definition of "water-fuelled car" in a potentially problematic way, I think we're on the same page, in so much as we both recognize that something is wrong there. Hopefully with the new thread you started we'll be able to figure out an improvement. And whatever, maybe I'm in the minority. It's possible that OMCV, SteveBaker, and other regulars over there will think you're version is better, and if so, I can live with that. Yilloslime (t) 00:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking the word 'necessary'?

Because not all readers might now that it means something specific logically, i.e., something can be necessary but not sufficient. Not a good idea? Or...? :-) --Andy Fugard (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is meant in the technical sense, or if the article is about logic, then it should be wikilinked; if not, then no. Bwrs (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I Agree with Bwrs. I can't think of any reason why this word should be linked in that article. Yilloslime (t) 15:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

As an uninvolved user, I decided to take the sockpuppetry case that you opened (regarding the California Graduate Institute) to WP:RFCU. Bwrs (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

cool. thanks. Yilloslime (t) 15:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

avery

hi, grateful for your input, i started both articles and slightly changed name since. this comes in waves. and some point who said he was alex avery did some changes and since every now and then anon users who always do the same kind of changes. Truetom (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Malathion

Hey Yilloslime, I see the quandary that an anon user has with "Malathion itself is not toxic" and "Malathion breaks down into Malaoxon, which is 61 times more toxic". My suggestion is for the first phrase to read "Malathion itself is not particularly toxic" to ease this confusion, but there are various definitions of "toxic"... Not being particularly involved in this side of chemistry, I figured I'd bounce it off you. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I think that article is in dire need of a rewrite and I don't have the time right now. But it seemed to me like removing that info was a step in the wrong direction, and a revert was the easiest (i.e. lowest effort) solution. The statement that "Malathion itself is not toxic" is incorrect or at least misleading. It may not be very toxic, but anything and everything is toxic in a large enough dose. It's possible that U.S. EPA or WHO may (I haven't looked it up) classify it as "not toxic" but that's a short hand for "not likely to be toxic under conditions of use" or something like that. I suspect the LD50 of malaoxon 61X lower than that of malathion, or the acute NOAELs differ by 61-fold. Again, I don't have time right at this moment to sort this out, but I am confident that malaoxon is much more toxic—by whichever definition you chose—than malathion. Yilloslime (t) 00:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I made this change[10] which I think clarifies the apparently contradictory statements. The article still needs a lot of work though... Yilloslime (t) 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I hear you on the "no time" count- I don't have the time to really get my teeth into a whole article, bless those that can. I do agree with your version of what toxic means; "anything and everything is toxic in a large enough dose" and it does get confusing when MSDSs and the like get taken too literally. Many thanks, Freestyle-69 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC) wishing to retire rich soon so I can edit WP as much as I'd like

Vandalism to Zepman2393

"Vandalism to Zepman2393" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waga0 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC) What the hell are you talking about? i didn't vandalize Zepman2393's page. You have to be out of your mind!

This. Yilloslime (t) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei and the RfM

Huaiwei's uncivil behavior has reached an elevated level that can't be ignored (especially after he accused my morality while mistaking me for you). I put up something on the Admin's noticeboard in regards to the matter, just FYI. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. Yilloslime (t) 04:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Singapore Airlines fleet. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend getting a clear consensus on the RS noticeboard and then using that to back an article RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tim. While I'm not psyched about being templated, I am psyched (or is it spelled "syked"?) to have you, as an involved admin, chiming in over Talk:Singapore Airlines fleet and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Airlinerlist.com_and_Airfleets.net. So thanks. Hopefully now that we have some outside eyes looking at this dispute, the edit warring—which I admit I've been guilty of—will stop and some progress will get made. I was hoping the WP:RSN thread would get more attention, and maybe it still will, but at least for now it looks like consensus is that the sources aren't reliable. I've never done an article RfC but I'll consider it. The article is currently part of an omnibus request for mediation that until recently was stalled, but now with Huaiwei's return is moving along, albeit at snails' pace. So anyways, my question is: Would an RfC on article that's already in mediation be "bad form"? Does the fact that the mediate hasn't yet turned to the issues at hand in the article (and given the pace, may never)—does this matter? What do you think? I had also considered AfDing it, since sections 1 & 2 are already covered in Singapore Airlines, section 3 is (in my opinion) cruft, so the article serves no purpose. But again, maybe it's bad form to AfD at this point. At least now things are being discussed on the talk page and we've even made a little progress, so I'm in no rush to AfD or RfC right now, but if the discussion seizes up again and if mediation doesn't go anywhere, then it might be time. I greatly appreciate your involvement and advice in all this. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism to Zepman 2393 Part 2"

I didn't vandalize his page - it is true. I "vandalized" it again, and I am going to keep doing that! What are you going to do!?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waga0 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This. Yilloslime (t) 16:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello Yilloslime. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 23:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bisphenol A

Hey Yilloslime,

May I ask why you reverted my edit (about manufacturers and BPA-free bottles) in the Bisphenol A article? There was no reason given for the undo. This was a good-faith edit, not vandalism, and I'd appreciate an explanation or discussion if you feel it was a mistake.

Thanks! -Clueless (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not leaving an edit summary--that was a mistake on my part. But basically, I thought the intro was fine as is and was not improved by adding the line about some manufacturers moving away from BPA, especially with a [citation needed] tag. The [citation needed] tag was really I didn't like about it--I don't see how the article is improved by having a sentence in the LEAD that's tagged as such: it doesn't make wikipedia look all the good, and it casts doubt on the rest of the article. On top of that, the very issue is discussed (and referenced) in the body of the article. So anyways, I saw it as a move in the wrong direction, hence the revert. Hope that makes sense. Sorry for not explaining the revert in the first place. Yilloslime (t) 22:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
That's ok :) Your explanation makes sense. I meant to point out that manufacturers (in addition to retailers) also reacted to the health concerns. However, there's no reason it has to be in the intro, and some proper references would certainly be a good thing. I'll look for some, and if I succeed, and I'll see if I can merge it more smoothly into the article body. Thanks for getting back to me! -Clueless (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there's already a ref in the article about Nalgene and REI ceasing to use BPA, so you could start there...Yilloslime (t) 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Kentucky Anon

It seems likely that this person is really User:RFmedic, who was banned for disrupting water energy articles. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm not familiar with RFmedic. Perhaps you could file a suspected sock puppet report. Yilloslime (t) 02:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It's just a hunch on my part, but I will when I have time. It won't do much good though... he keeps switching IPs anyway. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) OK strike that. Seems that I commented on the WP:AN thread that resulted in his ban. Still, I haven't looked into it, but if you see a similarity between the Kentucky Anon and RFmedic, perhaps you could write up a WP:SSP report of WP:RFCU request, or start another WP:AN thread. I suspect that since it's a dynamic IP, the solution is long term semi-protection of the relevant articles, and WP:AN would be the best place to suggest that. Yilloslime (t) 02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

after finding all the comments written about me on the Wiki Chem talk page, I wanted to say thank you for your idea about putting a review sticker over the PFOA article. i think it showed a lot of "wiki wisdom" for lack of a better word since i am relatively new. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

I think the section should stay I am just against using quotes on single words. Fru23 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya, but quotes are quotes and they need to be put within quotation marks, as described here: Wikipedia:Quote#Quoting_copyrighted_text. If you don't like the quasi-piecemeal nature of the section, you can try to improve it or just delete it, but simply removing the quotation marks isn't an option. FWIW, I think I just improved the section in question, and hopefully we call live with it. Yilloslime (t) 18:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fru23 (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New templates

I've created a couple of new templates, {{insecticides}} and {{herbicides}}. Since you seem to edit these topics quite a bit, would you mind taking a look and seeing if there are any obvious errors of omission, categorization, etc. or any other changes you would recommend? Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up and thanks for taking this on. I'll have a look!Yilloslime (t) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


WP:OR

So what is "original research" in the amendments that I have made, other than that the referenced links seem to be against yuor personal conviction?

Citing an intro stat textbook to undermine the conclusions of the US Surgeon General and a position paper from the American Heart Association is most certainly original research. You should really read the wikipedia policy on original research--it's here.Yilloslime (t) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yilloslime/Archive_3&oldid=1074648060"