User talk:69.226.103.13

AFC Article

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Jean Piveteau was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! TNXMan 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Synaptotylus newelli was created. The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Youngichthys xinghuansis was created. The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piveteausaurus

Hello;

Thank you for the compliments! I like the idea; it's particularly helpful in building up some knowledge of the history of a science. J. Spencer (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up the journal (Annales de Paléontologie), and it's listed as in the stacks at the University of Minnesota, so I can make photocopies of the figures next time I'm there and scan them for upload, if you don't mind waiting for a week or so. J. Spencer (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably be at the library Friday or Monday after the weekend, the way it's looking now. J. Spencer (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article today; however, all of the figures are photographs. I still copied them, though, and will probably upload some (the postcranial bits and pieces will be useful for Streptospondylus, at least). J. Spencer (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "event" to describe the Loihi 1996 earthquake swarms

FYI... The Loihi science team uses the word "event" to describe the series of earthquake swarms in 1996.[1] It is also used extensively by other authors. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for your excellent criticism on FAC and your superb edits to the Loihi article. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 69.226.103.13. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would like to be a member?

welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --10000 Walls (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory

Thanks for creating the article. There is a typo in the first sentence. I'm not sure what "drun" means, but I'm going to guess "drawn". Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Hiroshi Tamiya was created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Alexrexpvt (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any way I can change your mind?

I think that all of us here (on the Loihi page) are in agreement with you. Is there a particular reason you can't just create an account? Why is it so important to use this IP? Obviously, the culture here is at a crossroads. Yes, Wikipedia was founded with the ideal of "anyone can edit", but that has changed over the years due to vandalism. What do you see as the solution? Viriditas (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for your efforts

See: this page. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, 69.226.103.13. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AN

Hello, 69.226.103.13. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#"Gnawing" on unregistered IP's and new editors has to stop (even if they are tasty) regarding biting newcomers and IPs. Thank you. --Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

archived discussion:"Gnawing" on unregistered IP's --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Registering

Sorry to bother you, but have you ever thought of registering? You've made great strides here on Wikipedia. ResMar 16:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, seconded. WP could do with more editors like you. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybot

It's a pity you couldn't make these helpful comments at the bot's approval stage. If you can provide a clear protocol for the bot to make the suggested corrections, I will be happy to code it when I have time. I would need something along the lines of "on the first occurrence of the word 'crustose', replace 'crustose' with '[[encrusting]]'", for each of your points. Without these detailed instructions I'm afraid I'm not going to have the time to write the necessary script. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expert opinion would have been warmly received in the coding phase. Unfortunately expert contributors are quite rare on WP, and I struggled to find anybody to point out the errors in the articles created (see request for approval). If you can think of a way to get such input in future endeavours, it would definitely be worth developing!

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Admins checking anybot articles before deletion

I do have experience working in the species field, as I am a bureaucrat at Wikispecies. But having said that, I'm not an expert in algae field. What me, and assuming other admins, will do is working from User:Anybot/AfD and get the list of articles that needs to be deleted. I know that it's impossible for you to flip through each time, but you can try remove any that you have improved and "saved" from deletion. Like you said, we should keep as much as possible while taking out any with misinformation. So what do you suggest us to do? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hello, 69.226.103.13. You have new messages at FingersOnRoids's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

Thanks for your kind note regarding my extremely modest contribution (of course it is we who are thanking you). I have responded at length on my talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DNA

See User talk:69.226.103.13/DNA, when you've finished drop us a note on the article talkpage and we can merge in your edits. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, but well intended. Thanks. I'll try it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Write well with references = Abusive vandalism

I edit wikipedia a lot, from IPs. I've tried to edit with a newly registered name and it was impossible due to the hostility of wikipedia regulars to newly registered writers.

Now, although I've worked hard to contribute excellent writing and properly referenced encyclopedia level research, I'm accused of abusive editing.

If people write well, research, reference, and work to make the encyclopedia a usable resource on the web, they should not be tagged as abusive editors.

If wikipedia creates a system where it falsely accuses good writers of vandalism, it should have a system to correct that error.

What is the point of doing good work and being called a vandal?

Wikipedia needs to act as if good, well-referenced writing is a valuable resource. I need a major "wiki-break."

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this was from a couple of days ago, but don't sweat it! I have seen firsthand the difficulty editors have when they edit from an ip address. Sometimes it seems that the community forgets the number one rule of wikipedia: Assume good faith! I know that we all have reasons for editing under usernames, or IP addresses. Looking through your edits, I see the positive changes you have made to the biology area of wiki, and I want to say: Keep it up! Rmosler | ● 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested

In your recent WP:ANI thread, you say that you were called a 'vandal' and an 'abusive editor,' but I can't find where you were called either of those things. The tags in the filter are intentionally phrased neutrally, and I don't see any edits here on your talk page that apply those words to you- if they are being applied to you somewhere, that's a problem that I agree should definitely be fixed. Can you link for me to the places where you were called a 'vandal' and an 'abusive editor?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth

I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences when you've tried to create accounts; it seems to me like you have science knowledge to contribute and are a useful editor. Whether you decide to try again with a named account or keep using this ip, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if you have questions/problems in future- I don't know much about your field (bacteria are the little squiggly ones, right?) but I do know a fair amount about Wikipedia policy and about where to look for help with problems. For example: is it necessary to remove the source and the list of species? I'll bet if you just removed the box of incorrect information, ClueBot would likely leave you alone. Or are the species wrong as well? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note on your talk page. The species list is incorrect, and the bot should not have uploaded it. The source is a scientific data base that does not include the inaccurate information uploaded by the bot by error. The database is not the source of the bot's erorr, it's code is. Yes, it's necessary to remove the source. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your comment on my talk page. I know that there are certain aspects of Wikipedia and its automated processes that can be bloody aggravating at times - but try not to think of it as a personal attack. Probably just about every user who's ever made a significant volume of edits to article space has had one of their edits reverted by an over-zealous anti-vandal bot, or (more recently) had an edit flagged by the abuse filter. You have been doing some great work here and I'd hate to see you leave over this. To be honest, I can understand you feeling really pissed off, or hard-done-by, or unappreciated or whatever - it seems that bots and automation have been causing you nothing but hassle and extra work since you've been here. Would it help if I told you that it's not usually this much of an issue? Well, as far as I am aware, at least.

When it comes to the abuse filter - just because one of your edits has tripped a filter on a piece of software, it does not mean that the users patrolling the recent changes log will blindly revert your contribution based on nothing more than seeing that little flag pop up. Well, if they are doing that, then they bloody well shouldn't be - and need to be stopped... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heteronema

You made a change to the page Heteronema to the effect of stating that it is a genus of organism. While the page was a stub, this edit removes a great deal of content which was on the page. If you don't mind, I am going to revert this to the version by Anybot, as it contains more content. Rmosler | ● 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I assumed there was a reason for the edit. Go right ahead and revert. :)

PS. Adding a edit summary would help me out a lot in the future to understand your edit. Happy Editing! Rmosler | ● 19:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the award! I really appreciate it! Rmosler | ● 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

I tried summing up what's going on with the algae at this ANI thread, based on my understanding of your problem- I hope I got it right! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.