User talk:Pascal.Tesson/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pascal.Tesson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

Up to July 2006 Aug. & Sept. 2006 Oct. 2006 Nov. 2006 Dec. 2006 Jan. 2007 Feb. 2007 Mar. 2007 Apr. 2007 May 2007 Jun. 2007 Jul. 2007 Aug. 2007 Sep. 2007 Oct. 2007 Nov.-Dec. 2007 Jan.-Apr. 2008 May.-Jul. 2008 Aug.-Oct. 2008 Nov.-Dec. 2008 Jan. 2009-Jul. 2010

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously -- it's a rare occurrence to get an intelligent and well-thought out argument here. So kudos for your thoughts and convincing me! Keep up the awesome work. Rockstar915 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen about AfDs being smoother if people were open to changing their minds. I wish that it were clearer that AfDs are discussions, not a majority vote -- it's frustrating how often AfDs become a voting game rather than a discussion, with editors merely saying Delete and not giving any reason, and then subsequently getting upset if you ask them for one. But seriously -- keep up the great work, it's been a pleasure discussing Blubird (as strange as that sounds), and it always feels good (at least to me) to have my previous sentiments overturned with a good discussion. Rockstar915 06:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You directed the stub/article-in-progess on the Çabej family to Eqerem Çabej and the University named after him. The article was created to cover the family that falls under that surname, not one individual.

So, by your argument, stubs that "sit" for 45 days or so and are not yet referenced must be redirected to the closest related article or stub, whether that article/stub is referenced itself? I should mention that the Eqerem Cabej University stub that you redirect the Cabej article to is also unreferenced and, in fact, a stub in itself.

Hi,

Could you point out what section of the MoS specifically prohibits in-line citations from the lead section? That's a new one on me. In the past people have usually complained about not having citations in the lead. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In Re: Auxiliary Fractions. I worked on the article for a couple hours today. I hope that the mathematicians can understand it now. It does need an expert to prove A.F. do work by prefixing the remainder to the Q-digit. Although the Wikiproject's mathematics portal said someone would contribute, no one did. Yes, the article needed a lot of revision. I was surprised at the "interest" it generated. Larry R. Holmgren 20:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. If someone removes the prod template, we just add the uncategorized template back on? Or add a legitimate category and AfD it. Resurgent insurgent 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind being asked, don't worry :) but wouldn't it be easier to create Category:Universities and colleges in Europe, and add that to the Category:Categories by continent tree? >Radiant< 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• No harm in asking, I'd say, but it's probably not going to happen. We have a lot of by-country categories, and there are some categories by semi-arbitrary groupings of countries. For instance, if something is in Denmark, should it also be in a category for Scandinavia? How about England and the Commonwealth? That seems pretty much the same thing as what you're asking. HTH! >Radiant< 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to removing same. That section isn't signed, so it falls under the mandate of "refactor according to will of the wikiproject", to my way of thinking. Alai 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your note reminds me I'd intended to reply to your earlier comment. Yes, I was aware of the /uncat task force... I'd already posted to its talk page, indeed! And on the gazillion new uncategorized pages -- which you'll notice have started to arrive -- non, je ne regrette rien! :) For the moment, I'm avoiding tagging anything that existed (never mind was actually catted) in the previous db dump; or at least, I'm starting by tagging the newer ones. I'm somewhat in two minds as to whether to hold off on the older ones for longer: perhaps until they turn up on special:uncategorizedpages, perhaps, which I'm running the bot on every few days when it updates. Alai 05:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The bit i wrote on User:Elbekko 's page was, in fact, not nonsence. We know eachother, we go long back. IC refers to the game Imperial Conflict. Just thought you should know.

*Evil eye* Yeah i went a bit over the top on April Fools, I didn't do any in real life nor did i recieve any or even hear the term. So my quota wasn't filled and i only had one possibly solution. IAmTheCoinMan 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If an article is changed about 20 times a day, 15 of those by unregisted users who provide mostly provide invaild information, are awful at spelling and formatting. Should a "Editing by unregistered users" (block thing), be placed? IAmTheCoinMan 01:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations with your experiments on editing wikipedia. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but your recent edits on Earnshaw, Teatro Blanco and Savourcity's User Page are considered vandalism. If you continue to edit without regard for the rules of wikipedia you will be banned --RippoS 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your unusually gentle handling of this sensitive issue. Lets us draw a line under the whole thing --RippoS 02:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you see the talk page, you will understand. It was agreed that sexual behavior was a better name for the content that was previously in that article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illuminato (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello, you tagged clear band as copyvio. Please remove everything on the page when adding the copyvio template, including any maintenance templates. Just select all the text and type the copyvio template so none of the old wikitext remains. Thank you. Resurgent insurgent 16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your point. What's the use of adding a category to a article awaiting deletion? If the article is rewritten, it is the responsibility of the re-writer(s) to categorise the re-written version; and anyway, they aren't supposed to edit on the original article but on a subpage in the talk space. It is passable (but not preferable) to click on something in CAT:UNCAT and see something with an AfD or prod or even CSD template - at least one can see the article text below the template so they know why it was deleted and what category to give it if they want to try categorising it anyway, but to see a blank page with nothing but a "this page is listed on WP:CP" notice and the uncat template with no context - that is extremely disturbing. There is nothing on the uncat template that says "keep me here even if this article is a copyvio"; by keeping it there we're basically asking people to add categories to blank pages. Resurgent insurgent 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're not assuming that the rewriters can find a category for the new version even without the uncat template. And also, you did say that "the article... returns to a cleanup category that may have become obsolete in the meantime". Doesn't keeping an old uncat template on the page worsen the situation? Why not just let editors take a look at the page if/after it has been re-written, and not be influenced by tags commenting about previous copyvio versions? Resurgent insurgent 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the vandals? I've had them ever since I started doing NP patrolling, and being an admin does not seem to have made it any worse.

Incidentally, you do not appear on the list of admins. Is this through your choice?--Anthony.bradbury 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, man, go for it again. 73/26/6 may not quite be consensus, ok, but it is hardly failure. Would you like me to nominate you? I will do so right now if you say so. Or tomorrow, if you are not now on line. If they need me, they certainly need you.--Anthony.bradbury 23:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've undone some of your deletions at Alan and Jonathan. In theory, I agree with the unencyclopedic nature of such lists, but see community discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 25#Hndis needs its own Manual, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen (surname), and Talk:Jennifer. If there are fresher discussions which lean toward removing the lists, please let me know -- I'd like to help clean out some of the other name articles. Thanks. -- JHunterJ 16:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you can use {{lookfrom|Jonathan}} to get your Allpages link.

I was wondering how that page went down so quickly! but as you say, let's stay positive. Scarykitty 05:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, I'm not sure it's helpful to be referring to another editor's comments (especially one who does have many FA articles to his name) as "stupid" or "absurd." BTW, I have been checking into the FA claim. To my knowledge, no, Danny has not gotten an article to Featured status. He has indeed created many small articles, at least one of which stubs, White Rose, was expanded by other editors and featured in 2004. I've been unable to find any record of Billie Holiday ever being at featured status, let alone on the mainpage. Also, may I point out that there's a big difference between creating a stub, and getting it to the quality of "Featured" level. --Elonka 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to check in with you there, and make sure there weren't hard feelings on our disagreement becaue that wasn't my intention, I thought that what I said could be construed as sarcastic or what have you in that train wreck, and I wanted to make sure I didn't add any more misunderstanding in there. Just H 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no worries. I should've been more careful too with my "vote"(the exclamation point thing is a pet peeve of mine). Que sera. Live and learn. Whatever doesn't kill us only makes us stronger [insert cliche here], etc. etc. Just H 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay Pascal, this really has to stop. Now you're accusing Kelly Martin of "violating WP:POINT" for voting neutral on an RFA. You really need to stop, look at the things you are saying, and then stop saying them. This isn't helpful in the very least. If you disagree with Kelly's vote, politely inform her of it. But don't go around accusing people of violating policies, especially when they aren't. Please read WP:POINT again; Kelly is in no way, shape, or form, trying to disrupt Wikipedia. So stop accusing her of it. --Cyde Weys 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't callign you high strung I was referring to the two-three people above you going after each other over statistics of all things, lol. But yeah, at least you're trying to lighten the mood. Sorry if I came across as a little annoyed, I'm not :)--Wizardman 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Man I'm doing bad at catching humor today, lol. Maybe I should go to bed. BTW, would you be interested in applying for adminship again?--Wizardman 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support in my recent RfA, I have been promoted. J Milburn 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading a few of your statements over at Danny's RfA talk page, and this in particular caught my attention:

"..And I'm sorry if I feel a bit insistent but I know that many who opposed Danny are hesitant to criticize the b'crats decision because they don't want to be perceived as bitter"

I think that you are right about a lot of things, and I know that speaking for a ton of viewpoints (out of consideration for the people behind them) is never an easy job. You have my appreciation. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For the recent message and for the support in my RFA (and for the previous collaboration). Give me a shout if you need anything.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this! I didn't endorse it, but I'm really glad to see someone else adding a section. Fantastic! --Durin 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I didn't take your comment on my comment to be a jab. I thought it worth exploring how the process would work where I almost agreed with another comment- or agreed but reached a different conclusions. If we're going to test a new format, we may as well get the best view of how it will work in practice.... WjBscribe 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'm actually not sitting here fuming or anything BUT if to not make this rather obvious point where I have, where would one do so (to get more productivity I mean)? I mean Durin is an admin - shouldn't all of the Wiki community expect better behaviour from him?--VS ^talk 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem :O). It was the fact that the link to who he married was left intact in the duplicate article that gave it away. Once I saw that who she had married, and assuming she hadn't married two of the best tennis players in the world,, the rest was easy. Flowerpotman ^talk-_{wot I've done} 01:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As requested, I've now copied the key part of my comments at User talk:Durin to WT:RFA. I don't think that speculation on whether the nomination might have gone differently had it been formatted differently would be particularly helpful; I don't have any particular insight into that, beyond what any editor looking through the RfA could gather. Warofdreams talk 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but I see no harm in allowing the experiment to play out. As far as I can tell, there is also a significant (though disproportionate) number of editors who have little to no problem with the format, and I don't feel that is is disruptive any further than the fact that it has ruffled some people's feathers. Frankly it seems to me that a lot of the people not participating in my RfA are doing so more out of moral objection to the format rather than the inability to do so, and that's their prerogative. My RfA format, like any other, has its flaws, but I don't see how letting this continue is harmful. -- mattb 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pascal.Tesson, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

I was forgetting about the films; yes, as that's a long-standing cleanup resource that does actually seem to get emptied, that would fit my criteria perfectly. I'll go ahead and do so shortly. It's no problem providing further data: in the extreme case, I could just upload the numbers for all 1337 (no 'leet-speak intended) non-trival stub category trees. Or if you'd prefer some other cutoff or criterion... Alai 23:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's exactly what I meant by non-trival stub category trees. To soften the blow, I've cut it off at 200, and this time the list is alphabetic: User:Alai/uncatstubhier200. Let me know if I can tweak it further... Alai 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm currently populating the first 200 of the film/filming/filmaker stubs; if the WPJ doesn't yelp (and ideally if the cat begins shrinking), I'll do the rest in due course. For consistency, I'll probably go with the "uncategorised" spelling on the categories, as with the existing per-topic cats -- and to avoid having to add an s/z parameter to my script... I'm in two (or perhaps three) minds on whether to go with "Xs", "X articles" or "X stubs"; there might be an argument for a more inclusive scope (as with the albums and films), though of course I'll only be populating them with stubs. Thanks for your help on the "outreach" aspect of this; it's been in my mind for a while to pester more wikiprojects about this, but I didn't follow through after the initial rather mixed response. Alai 04:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pascal, I wanted to chat with you privately about the RfA process. It seems as though you are frequenting on the page talking about reform, which I am 100% behind, but the archives are so long and I have no clue where everyone stands, I figured I'd come here first. Anyways, I think the RfA process has really come a long way from its original implimentation, in a negative way. In the beginning, everyone had access to sysop tools. Now, we only give them to people who have uploaded X amount of photos, have Y amount of edits in Z amount of namespaces, and have edited for A amount of months. It's frustrating to many users, such as an RfA I supported which was shot down because of userboxes, that they may do tons of good work here and be denied adminship, only to mean they need to wait another 6 months to go again.

Secondly, for instance, I have 2300 edits, with 900 in the Main space. I am mainly a vandal fighter, and I use three different types of vandal programs to do that. I also participate in AfD's and RFPP's. I have been with Wikipedia, albeit not regularly, since December of 2005, with a long break in between. Last month I did a ton of work and I have almost 400 edits this month already. I feel that if I went for an RfA I would be denied because of a percieved lack of experience, although I feel I am very well experienced in the vandal fighting field, which is what I would use the tools for mainly. It's this kind of perception that makes a lot of Wikipedian's not want to go through the process. Instead of giving the tools to people who want to use them for a few specific pages (For me, AIV, CSD, AFD and probably RFPP, but even less for others), we oppose these people because they don't want to participate in EVERYTHING. And even when editors DO want to help out around here, they are opposed.

Well I'm rambling. Sorry if this takes up a lot, but this whole process has bugged me for a while now. Personally, I believe that we should not oppose people in RfA's unless we believe they would be a serious threat to the project. I don't believe a lack of experience (within reason) or userboxes or lack of edits in specific namespaces are grounds for this. I can't wait to hear your response. Thanks for taking the time to read all of this!  :-) Kntrabssi 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on recent comments on RFA, as well as your positive cooperation with someone who seems to hold the exact opposite opinion, I wish to give you this half barnstar. You can guess where the other half is :) >Radiant< 08:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I can half-block him if you like... >Radiant< 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this better? >Radiant< 12:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re [1]: I'm not working with Kelly on this, but took advantage of the convenient vehicle. I think perhaps now you see why there's some absurdities that have to be considered in a different light. This is why we're not supposed to have a voting system at RfA. The people who originally craft it I think recognized that as the community became larger, there would be increasing problems with absurd votes. Maybe I'm mapping too much onto their ideals. But, at any rate, I think you understand better now. :) --Durin 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed at the incivil tone of your comments in the discussion on Adambro's request for adminship. As you are well-aware, I am entitled to object to anyone's candidacy for any reason I feel is appropriate. I happen to believe that editors who are actively seeking adminship should not be permitted to achieve it. I also believe that the "WikiDefCon" thing is patently silly, and question the judgment of anyone who relies on it for any purpose other than amusement. I also freely admit that I am suspicious of administrator candidates, most of whose experience at Wikipedia appears to have been in the form of vandalism patrol, and so I am prone to oppose those who bear too many of the indicia of the CVU or other such "vandalwhacking" groups. I want a more rounded administrator corps, with more direct experience in article editing, and so I oppose candidates like Adambro.

I am not actively campaigning to remove the administrative privileges of any of the individuals listed in your comment because I believe that such a campaign would be ineffective. As it happens I do believe that Xaosflux, at the very least, should not be an admin, but I do not, at this time, wish to expend the energy requires to lobby the Arbitration Committee, itself an entity with significant problematic issues, that he, or any of the other named individuals, should be relieved of adminship. You are welcome to do so on my behalf, of course, and if you wish assistance I will offer such assistance as I can within the scope of my limited resources.

In any case, calling my opposition, or my reasons for my opposition, to his candidacy "patently absurd" is offensive, incivil, and inappropriate. You should be ashamed of yourself. I would urge you to retract your comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot signing that comment on my page was pretty funny. So was the fact that it was misspelled. I'm off to continue doing what made that IP angry, removing vandalism. --Savant13 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I left the following message on the alcohol gel discussion page and I am leaving the same message here to make sure you receive it.

Dear Pascal Tesson:

We are very disappointed in the deletion of the article on alcohol rubs from Wikipedia. We did not write the alcohol rubs article as an “advertisement-masquerading-as-an-article”. The only “advertisement” was a picture of Germ Out. The alcohol gel article has a picture of Purell so we assumed the inclusion of a picture of Germ Out was permissible. We wrote the alcohol rubs article using the same format as the alcohol gel article. We assumed the articles in Wikipedia are intended to inform. Which one of the following articles has the most information?

An alcohol gel, also known as a hand sanitizer, is a gel used by people as an alternative to hand washing with soap and water. Isopropanol and/or ethanol are the most commonly used alcohols. When hands are not visibly dirty, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers alcohol hand sanitizers as an acceptable alternative to soap and water for hand hygiene.^[1]

Alcohol concentration must be above 60% for alcohol gel to be effective in killing microbes. Researchers at East Tennessee State University recently found that products with alcohol concentrations as low as 40% are available in American stores.

OR

Alcohol rubs, also known as hand sanitizers or healthcare personnel hand washes, are gel, foam, or liquid solutions used by people and healthcare professionals as a supplement or alternative to hand washing with soap and water. The germ killer in alcohol rubs may be isopropanol, ethanol, or (in Europe) propanol. If hands are not dirty or soiled, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends alcohol rubs as an acceptable alternative to hand washing with soap and water to kill germs on your hands. The optimum alcohol concentration to kill germs is 70 to 95 %. Alcohol gels containing 62% alcohol are less effective germ killers than alcohol rubs containing at least 70% alcohol. Alcohol rubs containing two different germ killers (i.e. alcohol and benzalkonium chloride) are twice as effective as alcohol rubs containing only alcohol alone. Alcohol rubs must contain a good moisturizer to keep your hands from drying out. Alcohol rubs kill many different kinds of bacteria, including antibiotic resistant bacteria and TB bacteria. Alcohol rubs inactivate (kill) many different kinds of viruses, including the flu virus and the common cold virus. Alcohol rubs also kill fungus.

Sources

1. http: www.learnwell.org//handhygiene.htm 2. Jones R.D. Bacterial resistance and topical antimicrobial wash products. Am. J. Infect. 1999 Aug: 27(4):351-63. 3. Barry A.L., Fuchs, P.C., Brown, S.D. Lack of Effect of Antibiotic Resistance on Susceptibility of Microorganisms to Chlorhexidine gluconate and Povidone iodine. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Inf. Dis. 1999, 18: 920-921. 4. Hibbard, J.S. Analyses Comparing the Antimicrobial Activity and Safety of Current Antiseptic Agents. J. Infusion Nursing, 2005, 28: No. 3 194-207. 5. Pietsch, H. Hand Antiseptics: Rubs Versus Scrubs, Alcoholic Solutions Versus Alcoholic Gels. J. Hospital Infection 2001, (200) 48: Suppl A, S33-S36. 6. Kramer, A., Rudolpf, P., Kamph, G., and Pittet, D, Limited Efficacy of Alcohol-based Hand Gels. The Lancet, 2002, 359: April 27 1489-1490.

Please read the references given in both articles to verify the information given in both articles. If you do not like the picture of Germ Out in the alcohol rubs article, remove it. But in all fairness you should also remove the picture of Purell in the alcohol gel article.

Please reconsider your decision to delete the alcohol rubs article. It contains excellent information and outstanding references. If you do not want to redirect hand sanitizer to alcohol rub please consider redirecting hand sanitizer to neither or both alcohol rubs and alcohol gel.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

John S. Hibbard Ph.D., Consultant in Microbiology and Clinical Research, www.jacompaniesllc.com

Thank you for your tireless efforts and gracious leadership in the categorization project! --Joe Decker 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(in reply to your note on my UT: We should be so lucky! Seriously, the rare of categorization has been really impressive! --Joe Decker 18:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the translation of fr:Ernest Mercier. Definitely an interesting character, and I'd love some proofreaders :-) MOXFYRE (contrib) 19:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is user jshephard. Where did everything that I typed go to for Universal Peer Pressure. I heard that it was moved to peer pressure but I don't see my contributions anywhere there.

I understand your reasoning. I hesitated before placing the tag, because the beginning seemed legitimate. It was when I got to the part about the rapper, and his song of the same name, that I began to believe that the whole thing was just plain nonsense. I stand corrected. I still think it needs a rewrite. ---Charles 01:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pascal, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 08:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We recently wrote an article for a liquid Instant Hand Sanitizer called Germ Out. We very carefully followed the same format and information (including a picture of the product) as the Purell article. Since we followed the same format and information, we do not understand why the Germ Out article was deleted by one of your editors. Will someone please explain why the following Germ Out article was deleted and the Purell article has not been deleted?

Germ Out is a liquid instant hand sanitizer that contains two germ killers, 70 wt% isopropyl alcohol and 0.02 wt% benzalkonium chloride and a moisturizer, glycerin. Germ Out kills 99.99% of germs on the hands in 30 seconds. All alcohol gels, including Purell and Germ X etc., contain one germ killer, 62 v% ethyl alcohol. Two germ killers are significantly more effective than one germ killer and 70 wt% alcohol kills germs better than 62 v% alcohol. Since Germ Out is a liquid and not a gel, it spreads easier and more completely and it does not leave any "sticky" residue after it dries. Germ Out can be sprayed on the hands as a fine mist or added drop by drop from a flip top applicator. After wetting the hands thoroughly with Germ Out, they are rubbed together until the alcohol evaporates in approximately 30 seconds. Unlike the alcohol gels which kill germs for only 30 seconds, Germ Out continues killing germs for approximately 4 hours due to the second germ killer benzalkonium chloride which remains on the hands after the alcohol is gone.

Germ Out is a product of J & A Companies,L.L.C. and was first manufactured 1998 and first sold on the internet the same year.

Germ Out has been used by the US Navy, Airforce, and the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It has been used by Medical Personnel, Law Enforcement Officers, Schools, Day Care Centers, and the General Public.

Germ Out is flammable and should not be used around fire, spark, or flame. Children under 6 years old should not use Germ Out without adult supervision. Inactive ingredients in Germ Out include glycerin and water.

[edit] External Links Product website www.germout.com, Alcohol rubs, Alcohol based hand cleaners

[edit] Sources 1. http: www.learnwell.org//handhygiene.htm 2. Hibbard, J.S. Analyses Comparing the Antimicrobial Activity and Safety of Current Antiseptic Agents. J. Infusion Nursing, 2005, 28: No. 3 194-207. 3. Pietsch, H. Hand Antiseptics: Rubs Versus Scrubs, Alcoholic Solutions Versus Alcoholic Gels. J. Hospital Infection 2001, (200) 48: Suppl A, S33-S36. 4. Kramer, A., Rudolpf, P., Kamph, G., and Pittet, D, Limited Efficacy of Alcohol-based Hand Gels. The Lancet, 2002, 359: April 27 1489-1490.

Please consider "undeleting" the Germ Out article or deleting the Purell article as an advertisement.

Thank you.

John S. Hibbard, Ph.D., Consulting in Microbiology and Clinical Research, www.jacompaniesllc.com.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Purell"

Regarding your comment about the yellow box - I'm happy to remove it if you want! Anthony 21:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)