User talk:Probios

Welcome!

Hello, Probios, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Inositol. 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Slashme 09:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is appreciated - Sarah Palin - NPOV?

Please visit the discussion page to vote: is the page neutral or biased? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-infinity theory

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article E-infinity theory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Raven1977 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This article was about a physical theory that had hundreds of references at the journal of chaos, solitons and fractals. While the theory was new and suspiciously revolutionary (making the inventor a star at Egypt), I thought that it needed to be mentioned @ wiki. It was only later when the inventor of this theory was discredited as being the chief editor at the same journal and thus got his articles through without peer-review. However I still think that E-infinity theory should be mentioned here since there will be hundreds of future researchers who will be looking at these articles and should have a wiki-article to refer to. It should discredit the inventor but cite the ideas with the articles so that one could try to seek useful leads.

Speedy deletion of H1Z1

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as H1Z1, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This article was about a fictional virus during the H5N1 outbreak. It clearly stated that the virus in question was fictional and nothing else. I made it after a google search which revealed that some people believed the virus to be real. I wanted to ease their stress by giving the facts.

August 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Varg Vikernes, you will be blocked from editing. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My edition was wrong. I used hearsay for the edition of the article, but in good will. My attempt was to update wiki as early as possible thinking that I could delete the stuff at a later time point if it was proved to be wrong. The possible error would only exist for a brief moment so I thought it as an acceptable situation. I will not do this kind of mistakes anymore.

Strumus

I'm disappointed to see something like that from somebody who is clearly capable of making useful contributions. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Of all the nice feedback that I have gotten, this was totally uncalled-for. This just demonstrates ignorance, and not on my behalf. The article that I made can be traced -as cited- to Nolte's book. Check the glossary, please. Probios (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take notice of WP:ANI#Probios and hoax article strumus. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I can't believe this is happening. The information is from a neuroscience book that I cited. Now the article has been deleted, although I told that the source is legitimate and also explained all my previous "misbehaviors". Looie496, your ignorance has cost wikipedia an article that was truly valuable information source. Probios (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only information about this supposed part of the brain is in one text book. I've found the Spanish translation on Google Books.[1] Do you not find it odd that the word "strumus" is unused on PubMed and that no mention of it as a brain region is included in Google Scholar? Where did this textbook get its information from, if no other sources at all use the word? Fences&Windows 21:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do find it odd. However I believe that there could be clear reasons for this: the structure is small and it's functions are obscure, therefore it's not under fund-based research; also, the golden age of neuroanatomy is well behind us by now and NCBI doesn't seem to include every old article that has been published. Also, the structure or the whole region could possibly have an alternative name. I have now contacted John Nolte about his book and asked him to give references for strumus. Probios (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Oops! I got a mail from Nolte that clears the issue: strumus, effluvium, and trivium are all lame attempts at neuroanatomical humor. Most readers don't notice the strumus, but once a year or so I get an email from a medical student someplace in the world asking about it.
My bad, I'm sorry. Probios (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's a scamp...! *rolls eyes* I wondered if it were a copyright trap. Thank you for checking with Nolte, such an action is above and beyond the call of duty for most Wikipedia editors. I'd say this is a lesson against using a single source and an interesting spanner in the works of verifiability, not truth; it could be a case study. Fences&Windows 10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Strumus

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Strumus, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2010–2011 midwinter animal mass death events for deletion

The article 2010–2011 midwinter animal mass death events is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–2011 midwinter animal mass death events 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting the article "The Big Bang Theory"

If you are true to this desire, I support you completely. It is hard to fight the establishment. They will either censor you or block you or just railroad decisions.

You are absolutely correct, and if you even think hard about it, their arguments about capitalization are incomplete/misleading because:

1) the trademarked name is in all caps 2) the name appears in the show/publicity materials as: the BiG BANG (THEORY or theory) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.14.35 (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2012 (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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Probios. 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]