User talk:Angryapathy

Hello, and welcome to my talk page. What has brought you here today?

Just so you know why it ended

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers --Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agassi

The meth story is now in two sections personal life and theone you have added, please have a look and remove the comments from one of the sections as it is undue weight to add it in multiple locations, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Angryapathy. I would have done the same, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of video games

While i appreciate the copyedit, in the future don't change {{cite web}} references into {{url}} links.陣内 _Jinnai 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi Angryapathy,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Dye as merge. User:Barberio disputed this close and opened a deletion review, which was closed as the admin argued that merge closes are not considered at DRV. I merged the material to Newshounds and redirected the article; Barberio has reverted the redirect, though the material remains merged. A discussion on the merge is at Talk:Newshounds#Merge of Thomas K. Dye; your participation would be welcome. Fences&Windows 01:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing CDA discussion

Please note discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy. Ben Mac Dui 19:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Team

Per your comment on the TV Torso AfD: How do you think Sound Team meets notability requirements? I'm debating whether to take it to AfD as well, but I haven't convinced myself one way or the other. I'd like some feedback before I go forward (or not). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just wanted another opinion before going to AfD. We'll let sleeping bands lie. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I mistook this for your talk page and left a welcome message. Now I feel like an idiot. :D Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 16:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although I am confused why I need a welcome message... Angryapathy (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup you don't need being quite a veteran. Its a long story. I noticed your username on Village pump page and found the name pretty interesting and obviously clicked on it. Being a microbiologist was tempted to edit on Alicyclobacillus and kinda thought that your talk page was a red link (which was obviously your user subpage) and left you a message. Only later to realise my blunder! Makes sense? I'm sure it doesn't! Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 21:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, makes perfect sense now. Feel free to edit the article, I keep going back and forth on creating the damn thing. Angryapathy (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If its not too urgent to wait until after Christmas. I might dig in to Bergey's manual. How about using this as a model? I created this a while ago. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start. And yeah, no rush. I am suprised it hasn't been created already; there are tons of papers on it available on the web. Angryapathy (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muck Sticky

Hello Angryapathy, I have been working with Muck Sticky on getting this page up to par, I would really appreciate your help. I have some URLS that could warrant the information that was removed from the page today, please let me know... thank you Shane

http://www.jambase.com/Artists/43163/Muck-Sticky/Bio

http://music.aol.com/artist/muck-sticky/biography/2254305

Shane198three 06 January 2010 11:57 (PST)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Angryapathy,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chipotle Mexican Grill re: food sourcing

Hey there. You recently became the next in what's shaping up to be a long line of people who undo an edit I've made to Chipotle several times. The edit in question removed the statement, "Chipotle serves more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant." This is the third time I've made that same edit, as a matter of fact. I'd vaguely hoped to get the attention of user:HelloAnnyong, from whom I've been waiting for a response for some time. I know he's seen it - I forgot to sign my post and went back and signed it in a seperate edit - he undid that, but didn't respond. That's the problem - I can't get anyone to talk about it. Be the first?

Here's what I told him, or her -

"...I'd expurgated the statement, "Chipotle serves more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant," because it's difficult to support, rather than for a lack of trying on the part of whomever it was that initially added it. I still think that sentence ought to be omitted from the article, or else qualified to make it less absolute - one source does not a truth make, and the source was misquoted. What the sourced article actually says is, "This year, Chipotle will serve more than 60 million pounds of naturally raised meat - more than any other restaurant company - including all of its pork and chicken, and more than 60 percent of its beef." Clearly that statement refers only to the company's doings in the year 2009. And given a source that said what the article says in the same words, the statement still wouldn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article because it's subject to constant change, and depends upon the assumption by the writer that the author of the sourced material compared every single restaurant that existed at the time, which is unverifiable, which is the bottom line."

I still think so, and it occurs to me - the problem is that the sourced article doesn't cite its sources. I mean, if we knew where the author of the sourced material had gotten his information, if we knew what restaurants he'd compared, for example, one could write a more accurate statement, maybe to the effect that, "In 2009, Chipotle served more naturally raised meat than any other publicly traded company in the United States," or something. If you have that information, or can find it, let me know. But otherwise the original objection stands.

I'll do for you what I did for him, I guess, or her. Wait a week, then re-do the edit. Gimme somethin' to work with man. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Chipotle Growth Graph.png

Thank you for uploading File:Chipotle Growth Graph.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scepticism

Hi there - sorry, I didn't mean to come over quite so sarky in my edit summary, but "scepticism" is a correct spelling in BrE at least. I don't know about South African English, but the article isn't really settled in one dialect as far as I can see, so we may not need to "correct" stuff too much. Cheers, have a nice afternoon (or whatever) and if you're watching the World Cup at the moment then I hope you'll get a result you like! (I'm guessing you're not Slovenian, but what do I know?) DBaK (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Activity

Thx, yours actually flows better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coradon (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chipotle issue

See the discussion board. You're getting spun by a poorly written article. What are the other things that are not made in-house, as the statement says, "nearly all?"

Just wanna let you know i appreciate you were right to call me on that agglomeration of concepts

Yes there are two or more article concepts conflated in COS. I have been busy making corrections. I agree with many points. What is interesting is that i did discover that (a) there is in fact a body of academic publication on a generalized concept of culture of silence, but it is difficult to find. (b) What is useful is to google the references in academic papers, which brings stuff up that would just be buried in regular topic googling. (This post is not part of the afd thread.) I do appreciate a courteous and patient discussion. Bard गीता 23:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward Turtle

Hello. I added a section to the List of Gestures page today on the gesture known as the "Awkward Turtle". Your note was that you were not sure the gesture was notable enough for revision. I'd like to get a discussion going, either on my talk page or the discussion page for the List of Gestures article, about the validity (or lack thereof) of the gesture being made part of that page. In the interim, I've put the gesture back up, to encourage discussion on the topic. Would you consider adding your voice to the conversation? You seem to have made many edits on Wikipedia, and I would appreciate your input. Thank you, Emccurdy (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirect

When moving pages, as you did to Casey Anthony trial, please remember to fix any double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. Thank you. Swarm ^X 20:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could, expect that it was fully protected, and I'm not an admin. Angryapathy (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Anthony

I do not know which person you were referring to in your remark on the CA Talk page, but before making a judgment, please check what I am talking about. The evidence is there in the edits. This one editor is frequently deleting relevent references, that fully back up what is stated in the article and putting in inferior ones that only talk about some of the content. You are a veteran editor - how would you like to have to constantly check that the same editor has not yet again replaced your hard-found references with something inferior that wasn't even read before put in. It causes alot of unnecessary work. I think it is this editor who is trying to WP:OWN the article. No one else is doing it. See for yourself Mugginsx (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that I have had no problems with any other editors on this article. I also wanted the article named changed early on in the article but it got changed back. I didn't vote the second time it came up because at the time I was doing research on another article and didn't notice it. If it again comes up for a vote, would you please let me know? I am trying to do both things at once and might not see it. Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using all caps and saying "LEAVE IT ALONE" will be counterproductive as it seems like you are ordering another editor to do something. Angryapathy (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I am tired of being nice while she gets to insult me. I put it in lowercase (smile). Mugginsx (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so maybe I was a little too harsh, but see how you would feel - You write a very detailed article about bio-chemistry. Others are contributing and working out their differences like gentlemen or women. Then someone else comes in who knows nothing or very little about bio-chemistry and states he is going to completely restructure your article. He does not understand the subject matter, but that doesn't matter because he fancys himself an "expert" on re-structuring any article so why not bio-chemistry? His outline looks like a high school composition and is totally inappropriate. Everyone disagrees, so he says he will just go ahead and do it anyway - but piecemeal so that (her words) "people won't even know the difference". You have presented some formulas in the article. he decides he will use a newspaper article that "sort of" mentions bio-chemistry and puts it in to replace the hard mathematical formulas that you have put in the article. You try to explain to him but find that to get thru you have to present paragraphs containing biochemistry 101 before he temporary stops. He is quiet but the next day, he's done it again, and on and on and on. Read the Talk page - don't take my word for it. Mugginsx (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clostridium botulinum

Hi, I can't understand why you undid my infos on the page. They are reported in many Microbiology books. --Nemomnis (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, botulinum is related to sausage, but the name botulinum is because it was named after an outbreak involving sausage. Your statement was non-specific. Also, please cite the reference you refer to, and then in that case, you have some literature to back up your statement, so then I can't even disagree. You can read the policy on reliable sources and verifiability by clicking on those links for a little more information on the subject within Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your agenda? re bumblebeez

the edits you have are negative and wrong they did not get booed of at radiohead,so how can you say this?there is no fact! you are a hypocrite let people be and dont be negative,why does the world need more negativity?? the information is correct. so please stop being such a nazi thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpum123 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Killers

Why would you think the Dead Rock Stars Club is unreliable? In my long experience it proves to be more reliable and accurate than most websites, and that often includes newspapers of some repute.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems like it is a website where someone posts rock stars' death dates. Without any editorial review, I would say it fails WP:RS. However, that is my opinion, so I started a thread at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#thedeadrockstarsclub.com to see other editors' opinions. Angryapathy (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your reply, and I have posted a comment on that page.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Face Murder Theory

"When they went down into the area where we thought he went into the water, they noticed the graffiti and they noticed this smiley face painted on the wall," said Willoughby. It's a smiley face with a crown on its head. It's on the wall of the bar under the party deck, just 30 feet from the creek. Detective Willoughby called Tommy's mom who had also seen the news report. "When he told me about the smiley face, it just gave me chills," she said. The New York detectives believe there's more than one killer, perhaps a gang, since all of the smiley faces are painted differently. Detective Willoughby has sent them pictures of the smiley face found near Ridley Creek. He also contacted the FBI Heres your proof you lying troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.132.7 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Please consider adding ({{WikiProject Microbiology|class=Start|importance=low}}) or another Microbiology template to microbiology articles you create, and where appropriate, a place template as well. Also, you could add the appropriate categories to the articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Killers discography

If you look at articles of various artists and bands on Wikipedia, you see that the studio albums are always listed in the main discography as to distinguish them from compilation albums such as a "greatest hits" album, a live album or an album of B-sides and rarities. There's no Wikipedia guideline as far as I can see that doesn't say you cannot list a compilation album in the main discography but most articles lists the studio albums instead of compilation albums. Hope this helps! TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reaching Out

Hey Angryapathy, I see it's been awhile since you made your updates, but I wandered across the article on The Fallacy of Exclusive Premises and noted that your changes to fix the Some Vs. All Fish example had been stomped by someone trying to make the example fit. I updated it myself today with better examples that should avoid the problems of the previous one, and I was wondering if you could have a look and make any grammar/style changes you would like. I'm decent on the knowledge front, but not too great when it comes to formatting I'm afraid. Thanks, and I hope you are doing well. Memige (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Angryapathy. 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]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Angryapathy.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. User:Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Roseomonas aerofrigidensis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Roseomonas aerofrigidensis, Angryapathy!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added one reference url; it would be great if you would add the other, please

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Roseomonas wooponensis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Roseomonas wooponensis, Angryapathy!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add reference url if possible

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Roseomonas aerilata) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Roseomonas aerilata, Angryapathy!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added a URL to the key reference as I think this adds value to your article.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Roseomonas chloroacetimidivorans) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Roseomonas chloroacetimidivorans, Angryapathy!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Have changed "species of bacteria" to "species of bacterium" as it should be in the singular form when used in this way. Great work though!

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Roseomonas roseus) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Roseomonas roseus, Angryapathy!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice work, as before. Please add reference urls if possible, please.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Angryapathy. 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]

A page you started (Brachybacterium rhamnosum) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Brachybacterium rhamnosum, Angryapathy!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please consider using citation templates such as {{cite journal}}, for easier reference finding and formatting.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Spirit Animal (band)

Hi, I'm Innisfree987. Angryapathy, thanks for creating Spirit Animal (band)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hey there and thanks for the entry! This looks like one that's definitely trending toward notable though it'd help if there were more substantial coverage in secondary sources. If possible, definitely keep an eye out for the album release which likely will produce reviews that clear up any marginal notability question. Thanks and happy editing!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Innisfree987 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Brachybacterium nesterenkovii) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Brachybacterium nesterenkovii, Angryapathy!

Wikipedia editor RileyBugz just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice article, but it would be great if you could add a citation to all of the paragraphs. You can use a citation multiple times by giving it a name; see the article I reviewed for an example of that.

To reply, leave a comment on RileyBugz's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azospirillum brasilense

Hello - thank you for your message and close watching of the A. brasilense article. I started editing the article because it was in very poor shape, with barely anything useful on it. I have spent several years working with this microbe during my PhD and wanted to contribute some of this knowledge. I was planning to come back and add more sources as well as more information (which is why I added sections to the article, for easy expansion). The genetic pathway diagram I compiled from raw sequencing data. Some of the information added there (such as antibiotics and transformation and some other things you took back down) are from my own experiments, and not available anywhere. But you have a point when you say that Wikipedia is not the place for such primary information, although I would have loved for it to be available when I started out my project.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Angryapathy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Angryapathy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. ST47 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Microbiology Disambiguator's Barnstar
	I made this custom barnstar for your amazing work such as J. brevis. Thank you!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Angryapathy, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Angryapathy (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

MMXX Lunar Calendar

Angryapathy,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year – news article.
– Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a happy new year to you too! Angryapathy (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAR on Chipotle Mexican Grill

Chipotle Mexican Grill, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm 51.79.156.12. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Enterobacter gergoviae. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 51.79.156.12 (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plea

This is perhaps time to expose the problems you identified about synthesis (or whatever any other issue) you have on the talk page of the article. Because if not, the case might be you are removing sourced content on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. In addition, the paragraph concerns two sources dating 2009 and 2013 (from different authors) rather than just 2013, and I fail to see the point you are making about the 2013 source (a review of the historiography and the different perspectives historians take on the approach to the case of Spanish fascism), anyways. Please try to stay accurate when explaining your concerns.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a section on the Talk Page. You don't need to keep editing your comment on my talk page. Angryapathy (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to keep editing your comment on my talk page Fine by me. I wish not to have to communicate with you here again..--Asqueladd (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micronational infoboxes

Since Template:Infobox should not be used directly, in my opinion you should work towards creating Template:Infobox micronation. What do you think? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]