User talk:IntoThinAir

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

This user is in college.

This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time.
Although he may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for him may not be replied to for a while.
He will be back on Wikipedia when college is over.

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

I am not an admin. Please do not ask me to delete, restore or protect pages as I cannot do so.

Please see my response to your contested deletion

Hello, I'm Tc8585. You flagged my post for deletion and I have responded to you on the page's talk page. Please see my comments. And please let me know what I can do to unflag my post. I think this is an important resource for an unique organization. Please note the strong educational side of this organization. And also please note that I am still figuring out how to be eloquent here. Thank you for your help.

Tc8585 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Tc8585[reply]

Seralini

In regards to your reversion of my edit. I dug a bit deeper. Well basically your revision is more correct than mine, but not exactly correct.

There was the first peer review. Went through that and was published. Then due to outside pressure, a very rare second peer review. Went through that no problem. Then the publisher, again under pressure after the post hoc reviews, retracted the study. Then the paper was submitted to a new publisher. (4 journals volunteered to republish but ESE was chosen due to it being open access) That publisher hired 3 "reviewers" to review what had already been peer reviewed twice and passed. Those three "reviewers" basically were only looking for fraud though, since the paper had already been peer reviewed twice and they found no fraud or significant changes, they recommended that there was no need for a full formal "peer review" by a third team.

So in a way both versions of the story are correct, yet both are a bit slanted to produce bias. ESE did "review" as they do peer review all the studies they publish. But the 3 member review they did was not exactly what would be considered a formal "peer review" in the traditional sense, due to the unique circumstances. That 3rd review was more checking to see if the first two reviews was sufficient or if Seralini had fudged any raw data or any changes like that in the new version submitted for republishing. They found that the original peer reviews were competent, and no need to go through the full formal process again.

I have no axe to grind here though. Since technically the third review was not exactly a "peer review" in the traditional meaning, the version you produced is closer to the truth. So I am going to leave that alone. The one thing the article needs though is an update that includes this information. Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13 Which was published as commentary at the same time as the republishing. I'll let you add that though. I don't want to start an edit war on an obviously controversial page.Redddbaron (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a question

Thanks for adding a category to that Philosophia (journal) stub. I only found it by accident when I started working on an article for philoSOPHIA. Do you know much about how to handle problems with lowercase title publications? Lightbreather (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is covered here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Lowercase_first_letter Jinkinson talk to me 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tried that, but it didn't work. Still, thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sockpuppet investigations. Since you had some involvement with the Sockpuppet investigations redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I do not want Charge(game) to be deleted.I shall improve my article if that is what has to be done.I erased the two sources that is unacceptable.Please help me to stop this page being deleted.

OK, so what you need to do is find independent, reliable sources that discuss the game in depth and add them to the article. If you can find such sources and add a substantial number of them, I (or maybe someone else) will remove the prod tag. Jinkinson talk to me 01:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

Article for deletion

I do not want this article to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadeem_Bhabha . I would like to improve it and trying to improve it. Please help me to improve the article by suggesting what to remove from the previous information.

thanks Nadeembahoo (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find independent reliable sources that discuss Nadeem Bhabha in detail. Also, if you are Nadeem Bhabha you probably shouldn't edit the page yourself, so instead, add links to these sources on the article's talk page and propose they be added to the article. Jinkinson talk to me 16:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Disappearance of Hannah Graham for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disappearance of Hannah Graham is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Hannah Graham until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tangled Tales (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bluegrass. 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) 09:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Shore League (2nd nomination) that may be of interest to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check it please?

Hi. Lacking elements with this AfD. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have added some (but not all) of the stuff that's supposed to be there. The stuff I didn't add I skipped because I thought it would be too tedious to add.Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion sorting

Hi Jinkinson: Thanks for your work in adding deletion sorting to AfD discussions. Just a note regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Odense Boldklub squads: for articles that have lists of people, it's preferable to delete sort under "Lists of people", rather than "Lists" as you performed there. Just a heads up, and cheers. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup - September 2014 Newsletter

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - September 2014

Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations we want to make sure you understand the following:

This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here.
If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP!
The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning.

Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages.

Now for the one question that we guarantee you have: how on earth will the rounds work???

Yes, we never actually had a solid platform regarding how the rounds would work because we had no idea how many people would sign-up. Even though the competition is about to begin, because sign-ups are still open, it is impossible to say exactly how each round will work. As of now, we can confirm that Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on, so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools of even numbers (for example, every pool will have 6 participants). The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1.

It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on October 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified.

Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on October 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action!

If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here.

On October 16 or 17, 2014, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jinkinson!

Oh hi, how are you doing on Wikipedia? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 13:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup

Hi, can you please tell me what you thought the purpose of the GA Cup was? This will allow us to clarify the same confusion that other editors may have.--Dom497 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was about writing good articles, not reviewing them. Jinkinson talk to me 17:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. For the first year, we are trying to keep things simple. If this year is successful, we already have plans to include writing GA's next year.--Dom497 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be adopted

Hello Jinkinson, I'd liked to be adopted. I think it's funny how as a freshman in college I'm now spending spare time studying for class and editing Wikipedia instead of studying and playing video games. I don't know if I'm supposed to post under a talk page to ask for someone to adopt me, or if users are picked by random. I just felt I could use help refining my skills because I often find myself looking things up. If you're able to help me, thanks! --Dekema2 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll adopt you. Just ask me something here if you need help. Jinkinson talk to me 02:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot and see you around!! --Dekema2 (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, IntoThinAir. You have new messages at Talk:Pollock Rip Shoal.
Message added 16:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Dissident Aggressor 16:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello Jinkinson. You tagged "Pollock Rip Shoal" for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you.Template:Z19 The Dissident Aggressor 16:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox AFD #2

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Hoagland

I saw this on new pages, and did a quick touch-up to clarify notability. I imagine you intend to work on it further. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Blushes* Well I wasn't really, but there's clearly a lot of potential there and the subject is clearly notable, so maybe I could. The problem is there aren't many online sources since its subject has been dead for over 50 years. Jinkinson talk to me 00:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tangled Tales (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scat. 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) 09:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Infernus 780. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Lordkohla, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. InfernusIsHiding -Talk 18:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Opinion

I've modified the page Murat Pak - what do you think now? I would love it to survive so I'd love to hear your opinions on it's current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnihton (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alpocalypse HD deletion

I'm the one that created the Alpocalypse HD page, and I now see it was deleted because you listed it on AfD. Why didn't you tell me you were listing it? -Joltman (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, because I use Twinkle, which automatically notifies articles creators when I nominate a page for deletion. It notified User:Largerthanlife147, not you, so sorry if I was supposed to notify you instead but I had no idea I was. Jinkinson talk to me 12:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoos In Treble Deletion

Hi, I'm the creator of this page. Could you give me some pointers as to why its possibly being deleted and how to prevent it from being so? Other acapella groups at the same university have already had pages made and this particular group is making one for the sole purpose of documenting achievements. They are seeking no support through wiki as it is not appropriate to try to find fans via wiki; it is for documentation, as I said, of awards and to give others an idea of the group for any research/personal interest purposes along with the 6 other acapella groups who are part of the same foundation at UVa. Thats why I'm confused as to why the page's content is being questioned.