This user may have left Wikipedia. SocratesJedi has not edited Wikipedia since 24 February 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Here are some links I find useful:

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:IRC channel
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello, please don't be offended if I'm writing this in the wrong place. I'm writing in regard to the wikipedia page I made a change on which you reversed. It was about the PA chromosome. You mentioned that I was wrong, and that the philadelphia chromosome was reciprocal. It was very much a good faith edit on my part. I just got back from school and was about to change it when I saw your reverse. Thank you for having my back. I'm a medical student who should know better before simply changing things like that. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boonshofter (talk • contribs) 05:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there again! Hopefully school isn't driving you too nuts! :) I didn't know who to ask, but I was wondering what you did in cases where you see vandalism. Do I just reverse the vandalism and go my way, or do I try to find out who did it and report them? Specifically, I am talking about this article: Tetanospasmin. If you take a look at the contents, where it's supposed to say "clinical", you'll see what I mean. I learned my lesson from last time, so I won't be changing anything until I'm sure I know what I'm doing! :)

Boonshofter 07:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boonshofter (talk • contribs)

thank you for saying thank you. not many people do that.

Jakken 01:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged safe sex with the NPOV tag because it looked like there was a bunch of arguing/disagreeing going on in the discussion page (religious people vs non-religious people, etc) and because it looked like people were trampling over each others edits. Feel free to remove it if this isn't the case, I just noticed it when watching recent changes. Damicatz 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your warm response! I get the impression that you are going to be a quite welcome addition here. Glad to have you, Sam [Spade] 18:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please be careful to sign votes, some people will fail to count them if they are unsigned, Cheers, Sam [Spade] 21:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

could you evaluate the my recent changes to the Engineering physics page? James C. 08:08, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

See the Village pump page. There seems to be a bug right now with people being misdirected to anonymous user pages. RickK

Hi SocratesJedi. I'm glad you enjoyed the link to the "Earth from above" map. Did you notice that the map is "interactive" (that is, if you click on any other section of it, it will focus on that part of the globe - say Europe or Asia...). At the bottom of the page, you can also change the satellite feed. About the image, it's my fault for not addind the proper tag in it's page. That is a promotional shot for the movie (Episode II), and promotional shots are considered fair use, since they are meant for distribution in the media freely, as a means of promoting any given film. I'll add the tag to the image's page. Regards, Redux 01:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My objection to P0lyglut's addition of a quality section is entirely one based on NPOV, not accuracy. I am sure you have read Talk:MathWorld. If we comment on MathWorld's accuracy, then Wikipedia takes a point of view, which we cannot do. If we had some sort of external verification of the accuracy of lack thereof, that would be entirely appropriate. Dysprosia 09:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That looks like a valiant effort on MathWorld - I'll take a closer look later. Could you, however, provide some links to direct usenet posts via Google Groups? We still need to have some sort of direct reference to criticism. Dysprosia 22:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. I forgot that sometimes the Wiki software has issues with images and what links here. I've tried to delete images that didn't appear to be there for me but turned out to be because my ad-blocker was blocking anything stored in a */ad/* directory. Evil Monkey → Talk 08:36, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I had actually been meaning to get around to it for a couple of days, but wasn't sure it was a good idea.

Getting good images out out of the Homestar Runner flash files is easy if you open up the actual flash file in your browser without the encapsulating HTML. This allows you to do two things: use Flash's control menu to pause and step forwards and backwards, and make the display size much larger.

Being able to stop and step makes it easy to get what you're actually aiming for, and making the display size bigger gives you more room to crop out things that you don't want in the screenshot. It's not so important on this image, but it was useful for the other character shots. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi SocratesJedi, I just wanted to let you know that I posted a cropped version of the Cerro de la Silla picture on FPC, and am wondering what you think. Thanks alot! --Spangineer ∞ 22:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, SocratesJedi, I think you may have forgotten that you asked for comments about how to improve Eric W. Weisstein a while back, on Peer review. There are some comments there, if you're still interested. Compare also the Talk page.--Bishonen | Talk 16:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello Socrates, Please go to Image:Photo of magazine page.jpg to read the latest regarding this image, which I have restored. I am confident its use is within legal bounds, as per enclosed comments of my attorney. You might want to pass this on to the other editors, as it seems to clearly delineate what can be done. Haiduc 12:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:02, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I really like your idea for a table namespace and intuitive editor. It seems that this issue hasn't come to light though in the larger community (or at least I only randomly found it). I'd be interested in helping your support this if you wanted to raise awareness in the community at large. If you have a moment, leave me a message with what's been happening with that proposal (if it isn't obvious from the link in your user page) and if you're still interested in pursuing it further. In any case, I was very excited to see your proposal and would be very interested in helping you champion it. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't seem to get people to notice it. Nothing's been happening with the proposal. I will do all I can to help create it, but I don't know PHP/mysql/whatever people use to make this stuff. But yeah, it mostly just hasn't caught on yet. If you can help, please do. - Omegatron 14:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on the page, I was thinking of putting up a list of medal winners, seperate from the page about the Medal. I think the full list will provide a wealth a red links for bio writers, and most if not all the winners are notable researchers. I think the name and the year are sufficient - in a format like the Lasker Award, what do you think?--nixie 04:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In a fit of obsessiveness I put up the List of National Medal of Science winners. If you're looking for some busy work - red-link winners in biology, chemistry and engineering need their names checked, to make sure a variation of their name isn't already in wikipedia :) --nixie 01:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that Bishonen commented on this a while ago but there is no response. Would you be able to make a short note acknowledging the feedback? That would be nice :-) It gets a little discouraging when people take the time to give specific feedback and noone responds on peer review! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you claimed a "minor contribution" to the article on The Giver (and a very nice contribution it was). I've just finished adding a metric truckload of material on the book's publication history, critical reception, classroom use, challenges, etc., and I would more than welcome the people who worked on the article before to check it out again.

Best wishes, Anville 18:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me as a "learned community member"—I am truly flattered!. As for the image: it probably was an accident, intended for the Whacking day article. My first thought was that it was from The Simpsons, and a Google Image Search seems to confirm my suspicions. The uploader is Shadyvinny; based on his/her contribs, I'd say this user probably would best be classified as a clueless newbie. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 07:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I saw your VfD comment and fully concur. If you need me for anything else, you know where to find me. --Neutrality^talk 08:09, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

For images like Image:ORGate.JPG, (with large areas of the same color, or simple patterns in pixels) PNGs are generally used, since they don't get artifacts like JPEGs and can often be made much smaller.. This is reccomended here. Frencheigh 13:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know why Wikipedia prevented it before, but I'm glad it's been fixed now. --Durin 19:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SocratesJedi - please see my note at Template_talk:Reli-stub re: stub template images. Grutness|^hello? 02:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah - that's fine. Being bold is often the best thing. Hope I didn't tread on your toes too hard! :) Grutness|^hello? 03:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- I took a stab at religious violence. Would you like to take a look at it and see what you think? I tried to expand the topic a little and offer a little more tangible information, while still keeping it in the realm of NPOV, but I wouldn't mind a second opinion there. -- Captain Disdain 23:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm an anonymous internet surfer with way too much free time, no previous knowledge of Gall wasps, and pretty near fluent ability in German. Accordingly, I've just finished translating [1] into Gall wasp, as per your request of January 29. I have removed the request from the pending list, as well.

As my knowledge of German far exceeds my knowledge of Gall wasps, I imagine there are probably some errors here and there, something you or somebody else might be able to address. There are issues such as the fact that a lot of the species common names didn't translate especially well, etc. In particular, I noticed that the classification Tracheata is sometimes referred to as a subphylum, sometimes as a superclass, while Hexapoda gets named a subphylum on WikiEnglish but a superclass on WikiDeutsch! Elsewhere online, Hexapoda seems to carry both definitions. This is way outside my area of expertise, so I've left it as a subphylum in the interest of consistency, but I suppose there might be a big error in the classification system article in one language or the other?

Anyway, just wanted to let you know.

--66.32.3.94 01:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take your being called on the carpet as a reason to edit my change. Stained Glass and clasped hands do not convey any religious iconography. I believe that Grutness would have removed it himself if they had been.

I worked very hard to develop an image that would be broad-based, encompassing and not originating from any particular point of view. --ℬastique▼^talk 15:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I never saw preceding 1's but this might be peculiar to my browser version. Anyway it looks sweet and I can tell it's a sub-list which is all what's good. Cheers. Ø 21:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey all that new stuff and formatting on safe sex is looking pretty tight. Good job. Ø 22:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you're pretty awesome. I don't think I've got the patience for this kind of excellent communication so kudos to you on this whole safe sex/safer sex split issue.

Copyvio isn't automatically a candidate for speedy deletion, please use the {{copyvio}} tag instead. Kappa 18:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. It's the middle of my exam week and my wiki-stress is exasperated by real-life stress. ;) Thanks again, and warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 02:21, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this topic.

The Safe sex article seems focussed on STD and activities like solitary masturbation and phone sex. Is the suggestion of wearing medical gloves during masturbation serious?

All this hides the central issue that safer sex was developed as guidelines to reduce the spread of AIDS. It is a harm reduction approach.

I am very reluctant to start an editing war in an attempt to improve the safe sex article as you suggest.

Sci guy 15:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your further comments. The success of safer sex promotion is based on a simple message like - "if its not on, its not on". Meaning if a condom is "not on" then the sex is "not on".

Burying this simple message in a long article about phone sex and masturbating with a latex glove obscures the issue.

I fear that any attempt to clean up the safe sex article will start a reversion war - but I am happy to work through some of the details with you if you have the time. Sci guy 16:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your attitude. I am sure together we could work through the issues. But I also need to respect the need of wikipedians to vent all the other issues like cyber sex and mastubating in latex gloves. On balance, I think two articles are easier to manage Sci guy 15:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I’m a historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz at gmu dot edu

Hello again. If you have any questions about my request please do get in touch with me. I am trying to contact Wikipedians who have worked on articles about history and the history of science, and User Talk pages seemed like the best way to contact people. You can find out more about our larger project on the history of science, technology, and industry on our website, http://echo.gmu.edu . Best regards, Joan Fragaszy

Thanks for telling me about signing my name. That was the first time I voted on something and I didn't know I had to sign my name. You not signing yours kinda made me think it wasn't important, but thanks for the correction. This'll also be the first time I leave someone a message so I hope I don't screw something up. :P (I'm really good at that)

and I forgot to sign this page too... fudge -Atsquish

Thank you very much for your message. It is pleasing to see that my work is causing some impact. :) Cheers. --Sn0wflake 15:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed your reply (I am a new Wikipedia editor, though I have been using it for a while). I got the picture of Stephanie Pace Marshall from IMSA's webpage. www.imsa.edu Go to "Message from Our Founders."

The article has been improved drasticaly, I think this is a good enough reason to reopen the FA status of this article. To be fair I am notifying all parties involved with the article on old candidacy. If I forgot one of you, its not intentional. Thats all for now -- Cat ^chi? 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

Thank you for your friendly remarks, and I assure you I read no malice into your nomination. I've submitted some 2000 articles to Wikipedia, and it is not all that rare that one gets listed on VfD. I might be more annoyed if one of them ever ended up actually getting deleted, but so far none have. - SimonP July 2, 2005 02:24 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging me to write more about Kinsey's family. Unfortunately, that was the extent of the information available, except for the stub I wrote on his wife. I was surprised that there wasn't more information on her, as I understood that she contributed significantly to his work. But perhaps he took credit for it, others did not believe a woman could make a contribution, or she actually didn't do much. (The movie gave the impression that she did make a contribution.) --Westendgirl 9 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Hi, we are reverting User:Willy on Wheels vandalism absolutely as fast as possible. Please help out. Antandrus (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [2] Look at the move log; that explains what is going on. The "profane edit comments" to which you refer were the vandal's user name which we were reverting. Here are the vandal's contributions: [3]. The ones marked as [top] haven't been reverted yet. After we move them all back to the correct titles, we have to delete the redirects. It's the most difficult vandalism to clean up, which is why he keeps coming back and doing it again. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all done now. Anyway, hope that helps for the next time, because he's been hitting us every weekday, usually several times a day. Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you are using one or more of the User instruments templates in your Babel box. Inspired by some recent developments, I want to rework all the templates in there (including ones used on user pages), to make them more like the regular Babel templates. However, I thought I should hear from the people this would affect before actually doing it. Please weigh in at User:Ddawson/User instruments. Ddawson 10:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick message to let you know that a page that you have voted to keep in the past List of songs with brackets in their titles, is up for deletion againhere :( David 5000 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, I spelled it wrong myself, that's why I found your version first, not the -balch version.  :) - Stillnotelf 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your additions to this article. One remark. According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headings, one should not use capitals except at the beginning of heading and in proper names. That is to say,

===Power rule==

is better than

==Power Rule==

I will fix this now at this article. Thank you and enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) because you participated in the first vote. Savidan 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SocratesJedi, you voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) based on remaning the article. Could you please propose what you feel would be an appropriate name at that page. I have no idea what renaming would do to address some of the more fundamental objections to the article but I would at least like to know what you are proposing. Savidan 18:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SocratesJedi. I've removed Image:Obiwan1.jpg from your user page, as it is a copyrighted image that is being used under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been making edits recently in the Quality section. I just noticed your Jan 2005 request to discuss such edits on the talk page first. My apologies. But I hope you like much of what I've done & I did like your version more than what came before and realize there was need for compromise w/harsh Mathworld critics, requiring "weasel words"-which is a nnpov moniker itself. If we do disagree substantially, I'm willing to discuss and negotiate.Regards,Rich 20:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were concerned that the The Case for Christ article was biased against Christianity and was hoping that you might review the current state of the article. I agree that previous incarnations of the article did have some elements that were not suitable for inclusion, but I think the article is up to quality now. I have rewritten some previous information on Challenging the Verdict that I think is NPOV because it sticks to only talking about what the author actually said. Would you please review it at your convenience and provide comments? Thanks! -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wasn't specifically concerned about bias against Christianity, just that the criticisms sounded like they came from a know-it-all and didn't contain enough published material! In that respect it seems much better now - except that all the external links are to freethought website critiques! Easily fixed. Leon 07:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I see you have changed the spelling of "apologised" to "apologized."

I've changed it back. It's not a big deal to me, but a de facto policy of Wikipedia is that insofar as possible, articles pertaining to a particular country should be written in the dialect of that country (e.g., British English for England, American English for the United States, Indian English for India, etc.) Because of its colonial past, Fijian English is derived from British English, and favours British spellings.

-ISE versus -IZE: Historically, -ISE was the "standard" British spelling. In recent years, -IZE has gained currency in England - BUT not all former British colonies have followed suit, especially not Fiji. In many ways, Fijians are more British than the British themselves with respect to their use of English. I know one Fijian Wikipedian who feels strongly about this. Out of respect for people like him, I try to ensure that Fiji-related articles use what is considered correct spelling in their variety of English. David Cannon 11:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which version of combining the two do you prefer? And do you have any wording of one or the other that improves how it reads before I change it? Atom 01:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could particpate to help resolve the block in the adultery article it would be appreciated. I am not asking you to agree with my perspective, but to participate in a consensus process that results in wording satisfactory to all. At the moment it is very frustrating to me as another user will not offer any alternative wording, but just keeps reverting my changes the fix the NPOV issue. If you could offer wording of your own origination that seems to address both perspectives for the intro para, and see if we can find consensus, it would be appreciated. Atom 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

I was trying to find a way to not use the word "extramarital", but yet still impart the meaning. As adultery in some context has to do with sexual intercourse of married people, outside of marriage I tried to phrase it that way. "Extramarital" could apply to a variety of other situations not related to that. Atom 16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to completing the square inspires this comment. There's no need to write [[algebra|algebraic]]; it suffices to write [[algebra]]ic. The reader sees the whole word, not just the part in brackets, as a clickable link, and it links to the article whose name is in the brackets. Simiarly with [[hyphen]]ated, [[logic]]al, [[cat]]s, [[evolution]]ary, [[rabbi]]nical, [[Egypt]]ian, [[dogma]]tic, [[apocrypha]]l, [[fur trade]]r, [[antagonist]]ic, etc. The more complicated thing can be used for things like [[philosophy|philosophies]], [[science|scientific]], [[France|French]], etc. Michael Hardy 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assert that I am the same user as commons:User:SocratesJedi -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ScienceWorld, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G11.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceWorld, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that ScienceWorld satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScienceWorld and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of ScienceWorld during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:CaseForACreator.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Styx_-_Big_Bang_Theory.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:XOR.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:XNOR.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here. [reply]

I have nominated Biocentric individualism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocentric individualism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you participated in a previous AfD concerning this article. An editor has now nominated it for deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BrainPOP_(2nd_nomination)#BrainPOP Feel free to contribute to the AfD discussion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leads summarize articles. Since the science is most of the article text, I would have thought you'd leave this in. You might be able to come up with a better way to summarize the studies. B^e——C_ritical 08:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you will know, Wikipedia:Verifiability policy mandates that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guidelines further state "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." At present the only source for this article is not a third-party. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is a reasonable argument. I've reverted the article back to the last version by you, which includes the citation. SocratesJedi | Talk 21:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SJ,

I noticed you made some updates to the Neurofibromatosis Type 1 page. I see you are an MD/PhD. Are you interested in working in neurofibroma as a research area? I've been updating pages related to this area. I tried to start an NF WikiProject or an NF Medicine Task Force for this area but the reaction I got was that it was too specialized, even though it is in fact a challenging and deep research area. Here is a pointer to the 2011 Children's Tumor Foundation conference which is a good overview of current work: 2011 NF Conference, and here are conference summary articles and abstracts from past conferences: NF Conferences.

Research talent for this problem is widely dispersed. Nationally, only about 21 institutions over the last 5 years have received research grants from CTF. I have tried to interest several people working in neuroscience, biology and bioinformatics in this subject with no success. I think as a rule people may be attracted to areas with bigger funding bases, although it is possible in NF with some preliminary success to get good levels of NIH and DOD funding.

Some interesting factoids about NF1:

1. Hundreds of different mutations to Neurofibromin 1 lead to the primary initial diagnostic feature, which is cafe au lait spots.
2. There are few to no public mutation databases, but some private collections such as one at University of Alabama where the database owners are inclined to share.
3. There are many unfortunate developmental outcomes associated with NF1. Other than the spots, which are benign, there is no phenotype correlation of the various negative outsomes with individual observed neurofibromin 1 mutations at present. Some people at Harvard are doing genome-wide association studies to establish a phenotype with other genes.
4. There is no such thing as gene therapy per se for NF1, just drug therapies such as Gleevec after tumor formation has begun.
5. The key to this area is probably understanding the common features in the signalling pathways for the RASopathies.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Mormon nemesis has reverted a number of my recent edits without discussion on the article talk page. If you feel so inclined, I'd appreciate some help in promoting increased civility over there.--John Foxe (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your IP address from the history of Ultimate fate of the universe, to prevent your IP address being linked to your account. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SocratesJedi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SocratesJedi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ScienceWorld 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/ScienceWorld (2nd nomination) 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SocratesJedi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]