Talk:The Scientific Activist

If this article is going to be proposed for deletion, that's fine, although I have my doubts about the motives behind this. Regardless, though, the article is well-sourced and relevant, so those in favor of deletion need to make their case.Biochemnick 02:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please leave the deletion box up while the discussion is ongoing. This article is written by its subject's writer (biochemnick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), who has made clear through other edits that he is seeking self-promotion by inserting himself into Wikipedia articles. // 208.255.229.66 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- According to the box: "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." I have been the only person who has participated in the discussion, and you're out of line by replacing the box which initially appeared without any reason given. There still has been no compelling reasoning presented, and none of the article's many sources have been refuted. Therefore, the box will remain down until a productive discussion ensues. Biochemnick 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If large swaths of information are going to be removed (especially relevant references) I think it's only fair that such major changes are discussed here on the talk page. Otherwise, the article should remain at its full length. Biochemnick 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes should be discussed here. References that contribute to the article should not be removed. Cellularesque 10:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Cellularesque is correct, "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. " If there is objection to this, the course should be to take it to AfD. An AfD notice, of course, cannot be removed while the discussion is in process. Personally, I consider the article justified in spite of the potential AfD, and will defend it strongly there. It has the necessary notability as shown by RS, and that is the standard. (I would advise the ed. to check very carefully to see that there is no information not supported by RS) But other may not, & if you still consider the article inappropriate, that is the place to find out the community consensus.

And 66.177.173.119 is in apparent violation of 3RR. DGG 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2007 revert war

It seems 208.255.229.66 (talk · contribs) and 66.177.173.119 (talk · contribs) have for some time been in a revert war with Biochemnick (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Nick Anthis, The Scientific Activist). Perhaps they care to explain why they are attempting to remove sources and references to Anthis from the text of the article?

I do not see the current version of the article as a vanity page and feel that the blogger's name and the sources listed are very relevant to the article. Removing content without explanation is obviously vandalism. -MrFizyx 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is listed among others in the George Deutsch section of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found that too. Creating a page about oneself and adding ones own name to lists of notable allumni at every institution that you have attended is obviously problematic. I think this page, however, has some valid claim to notability, and the blogger's name here should be part of our coverage of the topic. If others feel the blog is not notable, the sensible option is to post the entire article at Articles for Deletion. -MrFizyx 21:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that the entry for this article at the conflict of interest noticeboard be closed. Anyone who has an opinion may comment there. EdJohnston 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coverage of "Pro-Test" movement

The article claims that the blog: "gained early attention for its coverage of Oxford's pro-research Pro-Test movement." The only citation for this is the blog itself. The blog post cited has responses from only five other readers. Was the blog mentioned or referenced in coverage of the event by a secondary source? What makes the SA coverage of this worthy of mention? -MrFizyx 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all of the productive discussion going on here right now. I added a reference for the animal rights citation (and changed the wording). The blog was linked to by Ben Goldacre's popular BadScience site just a couple of weeks after it was founded for its animal rights coverage. I'm not sure if this merits inclusion of this aspect in Wikipedia, but I have added the reference for others to judge. Biochemnick 00:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Deletion

remove vanity article, please. Nickanthis (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to be Biochemnick and are requesting deletion of the article. If you really are Biochemnick why don't you login to that account and request the deletion? Jons63 (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User "Nickanthis" is not me, and I am certainly not requesting deletion of this article. It was thoroughly vetted over a year ago, and the result was that it was deemed acceptable for Wikipedia. This other user needs to stop impersonating me.Biochemnick (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]