User talk:FGT2

Prussian blue (disambiguation)

Hey there, I noticed your recent edit to this disambiguation page. This is interesting information, but I'm not sure it belongs in a disambiguation page, which exists only to distinguish between different usages of the same terms. The compound Prussian blue already has an article, and I'm assuming this is the same substance. I'm not totally sure where it belongs - Holocaust denial perhaps? Though before adding anything to that article, you might want to read the Talk:Holocaust denial as several editors have worked very hard to achieve an encyclopedic tone (not easy with such a subject.) Welcome to wikipedia! Cheers Dina 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the same article. If you read Prussian blue it says "Prussian blue (Preußisch Blau, Berliner Blau) is a dark blue pigment used in paints and formerly in blueprints."

Wow, I am learning some interesting (and creepy) things today. Though I think it might be the same substance. There's an article on a creepy little neo-nazi girl band (!) at Prussian Blue (duo) that references some of the same material -- and the dispute does seem to be about the pigment. I guess my point is, that a disambig page is there to direct readers to articles. However, I have not reverted you, I'm just trying to find a better place for this. Cheers Dina 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a new article?

Why not take a closer look at Zyklon B? It might work there. Dina 21:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but there still should be a mention on the Prussian Blue index page of what the substance is.

Give me a minute and I will rewrite the disambig to reflect your concerns and we'll see how that flies. I think I thought of a way to do it. Cheers Dina 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, take a look. I tried to take a more encyclopaedic approach. I also removed your external link -- I suggest you find a way to add that citation into the Zyklon B article, although, if you check, there's already a lot of sources there. If you hate it, feel free to change it. Cheers. Dina 22:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine.

Speedy Removal

I removed the db-bio template I added to Rosemary Altea after reviewing it at your request. I still think she's on the edge of notability. You should probably try to find a few more references to firm things up. Hatch68 02:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Point

Ok, you've gotta to explain your reasons for proding Omega Point. Maury 04:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Osteopathy and my talk page

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Levine2112 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to stop removing a link without reason. FGT2 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted RfC

Actually I tagged the article for deletion, Redvers agreed with me and deleted it. I read the RfC. It is true that two editors had contributed to it and made similar complaints, however nowhere was there evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute as is required. Also, two users must sign to say that they certify the basis of the dispute this had not happened. As I said in my post at User talk:Aaron Brenneman, I suspect that this arose from the fact that standard template was not used for the RfC.

If you still wish to start an RfC about that editor, I suggest you start a new RfC, using Template:RfC as your starting point. If you need access to the contents of the old RfC, you can ask an admin to undelete the contents and move it your userspace. Hope that helps but I stand by the decision to tag the RfC for deletion, WjBscribe 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've tried to conform a bit more to convention, if you'd like to "certify." Although I'm suspecting that it will all come to nothing in the end, as most requests for comment do. - brenneman 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read and think twice

Dear Sir, I am Dr. Mohammad Samir Hossain from Bangladesh. I was and still am too poor like my country. I was desperately searching for support for my research and seeing my desperate wish some educators from the so called non-accreditated university Bircham International University became too kind to buy me books and appove me 100% fund. I had to beg to many but got only one. So I jumped on my dream topic - Philosophy of Death and Adjustment and start working on the Impact of different philosophies on different bangladeshi people. I did it because in the science of death such research was never conducted, but if I can do or at least raise some point for it, may be some richer and more qualified people will find their interest in it and may proceed. My back ground thought was that remedy to many mental health problem might come out from this new branch. But who would raise me with it? Cause I did not have money even to buy papers or my daily food, let alone doing vast correspondences or take help from any accreditated university. Though fortunately I enrolled at Harvard Medical School with full waiver, but that was too small period for me to do any good job. Finally I thought may be Elisabeth kubler-Ross herself might find interest in it and togather we will proceed. But my luck did not support me, cause I found the news of her funeral on the very day I found her organization's web site. So temporarily my research work stopped upto which Bircham International University helped me. So till now I dream of proceeding more on the research with supports of knowledge from all over the world, and I do not even have a web site to introduce my thoughts. So the only light of hope became this free encyclopedia, and for reference I only had Bircham International University web site. So I desperately tried to promote the introduction of the university in this encyclopedia so that the research reference gets its better base. I know my letter is big and annoying, but sometimes we do annoying things for something better, and please believe me I tried to promote Bircham International University or any other that you all object, just to facilitate the birth of a new branch of a science. Please help me in every way, you do not need to ask me anything for editing or changing. If you all fail to help in a rational manner, I do not mind and will take it as a fate. I will see my reply through the condition of the article "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". I will love to see this baby of mine alive, but if dead, I will follow the branch of science that I am holding on.

Regards Md. Samir Hossain MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychiatry E-mail: hmanjur@bttb.net.bd 203.112.197.18 15:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist for people to promote their business or beliefs. It is encyclopedia. FGT2 23:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FGT2

With due respect to your opinions,most of your reactions, as I myself have to deal with Psychiatry, seems a bit emotional to me. What is meant to be a supportive work for the science you name it business. Also without knowing completely you name a statistically significant research result as Belief! Are beliefs obtained by research, do you believe in yourself after a significant amount of research? Did you see or know the detail of my research work to make such comment? If not then why such comment, will you please tell me? If its not worth it you can mention it very easily and in a rational manner. I really feel guilty about this situation and ofcourse that at least does not give any credit to any editing job. Forgive me pls if I'm wrong.

Dr. Samir

Assistant Professor of Psychiatry 203.112.199.161 14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:RS for what types of sources should be included to prove notability. FGT2 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but

Does your comment on any article have any rule to follow? Does that permit any comment disregarding any positive possibility. I believe you can move something if you do not want to keep it or feel suspicious about anything, but you can't define it without fully knowing it. If its not in your rules pls add it. Thank you for your information. But you never gave the answer to the questions that I asked, against which you suggested something else(though important for me ofcourse!)

Regards

Samir203.112.199.242 09:21, 19 February 2007 (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) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]