User talk:Immunize/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please, I need help!

Hi Immunize, I'm Science Star, a new user here... I'm wondering if you could help me, I'll be glad! I have some problems with the website, I'm not familier with it. It is my honor if I get your help! Best regards, Science Star Science Star (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the nature of your problem? I am happy to help, if needed. Immunize (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dear Immunize! One of my problems is that I can't use the website properly! If you could give me a little instructions. For example: how to write an article? How to talk to other users? I'm afraid I'm bothering you. Best wishes, Science star --Science Star (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My Problems!

Hi Dear Immunize! One of my problems is that I can't use the website properly! If you could give me a little instructions. For example: how to write an article? How to talk to other users? I'm afraid I'm bothering you. Best wishes, Science star --Science Star (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Immunize, your links were excellent, they really helped me. I think you are a very kind person, you like helping others. You know, I'm also interested in health, especially eating healthy food and staying healthy. I've done several projects on that, and one on vaccination. I like to be your friend, I always like to be smart person's friend. Do you accept me as your friend? Best regards, --Science Star (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I accept you as a friend, Science Star (talk · contribs). Tell me, have you created a new article yet? Immunize (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a volunteer

Hi Immunize,

I need a volunteer or two to check quality assessment ratings for medicine-related stubs. Category:Stub-Class medicine articles lists some 10,000 medicine-related articles, and perhaps 5% or so are no longer stubs. Additionally, as typically low-traffic pages, they need periodic review to check for outright vandalism.

If you're interested in helping with this, I've just posted the directions at the bottom of WT:MEDA. (Don't be intimidated by my wordy directions: it's usually much faster to do it than to learn it!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I will consider. Thank you for letting me know. Immunize (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Diseases with no known cure - please stop

Please stop adding diseases to this category. Firstly, it is very likely to be deleted, making it a waste of effort. Secondly, you don't appear to be adding sources or even checking if the disease can be cured. Categories, like everything else, must have a source. Several of the diseases you have categorised today have a cure. It is extremely irresponsible to be tagging diseases with "no known cure" when this is not the case. Colin°^Talk 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I suppose I do not really understand how to use categories fully. Was my addition of the article on thrombocytopenia to the category hematopathology appropriate? Immunize (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

At a quick look, the Category:Hematopathology addition is probably OK but that category should probably in turn be in the Category:Hematology. If that is done, then you can remove Category:Hematology from Thrombocytopenia. However, I'm not a doctor and I only had a very quick look. Probably best to ask a doctor. The important thing is we try to include an article in the most specific category and avoid duplication. See the help on categories. Colin°^Talk 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please stop adding Category:Oncology to articles that already have a cancer-related category. This is duplication. Colin°^Talk 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And please stop randomly adding the "Diseases with no known cure" category to viral infections as you did to Hepatitis C, which is curable. You are scaremongering again. Graham Colm (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the prognosis for hepatitis C without cirrhosis is now fairly good (see this link http://www.webmd.com/hepatitis/news/20040303/hepatitis-c-cure-rates-highest-ever), but, as this link states, the cure rate is 63%, so 37% of patients fail to clear virus, and these patients may progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. I feel it comes down to weather or not partially curable diseases are added to this category. Is there any consensus on this? Immunize (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Partly curable diseases have a cure. No remedy is 100% efficacious 100% of the time. But what does it mean to be cured? You can often cure cancer by cutting out a bit of the body, but I wouldn't be happy about a cure for a sore toe that involved chopping off the toe. The difficulty of pinning down the definition, and the fact that any inclusion criteria aren't obvious, means that a category isn't the best choice. Categories are for things that are incontestable and obvious. Colin°^Talk 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I see that you have removed cirrhosis from the category in question, with the reasoning being that liver transplantation is a cure, which is true. However, the minority of patients with cirrhotic livers can undergo this treatment, and for them the disease relentlessly progresses, and typically terminates in death. Immunize (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi, Immunize. I am a new member of wikipedia. My nickname is soso97. I don't know manythings about starting wikipedia, how to write new sections. I have just learned how to write a message for you by the help of my best friend, Science star. I know that you are Science star's friend. I hope that you could send me some new links.... Soso97, 07-07-2010, 08:27 Pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soso97 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, it appears you already have links to the pages you need. If you need more help than these links provide, feel free to leave me another message. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Archives

Hi Immunize,

Thanks for your message. I have moved some more of this page to the first Archive and I have created a second archive for you because the first one is already very long. (See the pretty box at the top of the page). I suggest that you use the second one from now on. When the second one gets too long add this line to the Archive box template [[/Archive 3]]. The save the page, click on the red link to create the new archive and cut and paste from this page. Graham Colm (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any limit to how many archives you can have? Immunize (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No limit. I also suggest that you start adding dates to them. You can do this by changing this in the template: [[/Archive 1]] to this : [[/Archive 1|Jan-Mar 2010]] for example. Graham Colm (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. This page is now looking very professional. Graham Colm (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

question

Hello, can you please tell me, how were you able to get this editor blocked so fast? I'm using Twinkle and when I see multiple vandalism by one editor, especially right in a row, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. Do I post to AIV? Is that how you did it?Malke2010 15:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Which editor are you referring to? I probably did report the user to AIV, which, using twinkle, can be done by clicking on the "arv" button at the top of the users talk page. Immunize (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the diff: [1]. Thanks for the info on the arv button.Malke2010 15:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Palma de mallorca

Hello Immunize. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Palma de mallorca, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G8 doesn't apply - the target exists; nor does R3. This is a normal, useful redirect. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I know you get a lot of negative attention here, so I just want to remind you that we do appreciate your anti-vandalism work. 67.68.34.17‎ is blocked now, thanks in part to your catching their edits. —Soap— 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, good job. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Immunize (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking to files, rather than displaying them

Put a colon in front i.e. [[:File:CapitolRecord45Small.jpg]] gives you File:CapitolRecord45Small.jpg. Same thing works for links to categories, and gives you a link to the category page, rather including the page in the category. David Underdown (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

yo

I respo0nding to your request on VPP Sapporod1965 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Immunize. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 15:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comments at Pump

I share you concerns [2] This is a huge issue and dealing with it goes to the fundamental core of Wikipedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very major problem. I feel that the best solution is either universally requiring registration or requiring all IP's with 2 or edits constituting vandalism being required to log in. I am also disturbed at the preferential treatment of vandalism only IP's over vandalism-only accounts. While vandalism only accounts are indef blocked (as the first block), vandalism-only IP's typically are initially blocked for only 12-72 hours, which, in my view, is ridiculous. If across-the board registration is not implemented, there should at least be harsher blocks on vandalizing IP's. Regards. Immunize (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would like to suggest that you check these guidelines for better organization of your conversations :-), by the way I learned these recently. Please replay to my talk page, and enjoy editing MaenK.A._Talk 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles in your userspace

I noticed that several of your userfied List of causes of... articles have incoming links from the article space. You really should unlink those until the list articles are moved back out in the article space. Regards, PDCook (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and unlinked them. Feel free to re-add appropriate links when the articles are moved back out to the article space. PDCook (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mumps category

Thanks for inviting my input. I don't agree that the cat needs to be removed, which is what I said on the delete discussion page. But that's what it's all about, right? Expressing one's opinion. Peace! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I help??

Hi, can I help you to improve this?? MaenK.A._Talk 19:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to assist in the effort to improve this article (and then move it back into the article space). Immunize (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good I ll start working on that MaenK.A._Talk 19:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Shlomo SAwilowsky page

Many editors have attacked this page because it is euphoric, close minded, and lacks secondary sources. I am trying to edit it to meet those criticisms. As far as I can tell from secondary sources, the subject is a professor and is a distinguished faculty fellow. If the entry is not deleted for lack of notoriety, all else should be removed except that.141.217.105.228 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You should discuss major changes, particularly those that remove content, on that articles talk page prior to making them, as edits that remove content without reason are likely to be deleted. Immunize (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

uw-test2 template

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I undid your changes to {{uw-test2}}. By design, none of the level one or level two templates described at WP:UTM mention blocks. When WikiProject user warnings harmonized the warning templates, it was determined that we would not discuss blocks until the level three and four warnings. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I also made an edit to the Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. template that mentioned blocks prior to the edit, so when I saw this message, I attempted to revert it. However, it said when I attempted to revert it "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually". Immunize (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted back to the version prior to your edits. Those templates are used by many users, and it was inappropriate for you to change them without first discussing it. Again, please discuss first and act on consensus. PDCook (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I should have discussed it on Wikiproject user warnings talk page before I made such a sweeping change. Immunize (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

don't link to userspace from mainspace

Hi Immunize. I've been cleaning up article pages that have links out of article space- for instance, when they have links to a user's area. You created several redirects in February that fit this category- for instance, Causes of lymphadenopathy, Causes of abdominal pain, List of causes of vomiting, List of causes of unexplained weight loss, List of causes of enlarged lymph nodes, List of causes of bloody stool. These are discouraged- see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. In fact, when the redirect is to userspace, they are simply not allowed, as it makes it difficult for a consumer of the encyclopedia to know if they are in the encyclopedia or in some user's basement. See Wikipedia:CSD#R2 for further info. tedder (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any remaining cross-namespace redirects (if there are I am happy to help fix them), or have they all been deleted? Immunize (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed all of them. It takes an admin to delete a page anyhow- I just wanted to make sure you didn't create more going forward. Cheers, tedder (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Y'all

I don't understand what I did, y'all. I mean, why ya so stuck up? Y'all at Wikipedia are corrupt. Bye y'all, and good day! --24.2.195.244 (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits constitute vandalism, and, in the event that you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Immunize (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, y'all. But it's the true facts, y'all. Well y'all on to the next person. OK, y'all, and good day! Have anything to say to that, y'all? Na, didn't think so, y'all --24.2.195.244 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tks for quick catch of PTSD content removal

Nice work - a very quick reversion of inexplicably deleted material. Much appreciated. Tom Cloyd (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

If you honestly meant the comment about wanting to know whether there was indeed vandalism, then I applaud you for it - far too many people in these days blindly follow without questioning or asking if what they follow is right.

Never waver from seeking the truth, no matter where it leads you.

99.139.202.115 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

New categories

Hi Immunize. Just some tips for creating new categories...it is unnecessary to add "The parent category of for this category is x. The main article for this category is x." to the header. Putting the new category in its parent category is sufficient, and you should use the template {{catmore}} to generate "The main article for this category is x." Also, I don't think you need to use the {{talkback}} template so much - especially when someone initiates a conversation with you on a talk page other than your own. Usually, if someone replies to something you wrote on another talk page, they found your conversation because they were already watching that page and following the conversation. Otherwise, keep up the good work. --Scott Alter 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice on the use of the {{catmore}} template when creating new categories. About my use of the talkback template, I have often encountered situations where I have not recieved a response for hours to days, probably because the users in question do not have the "add pages I edit to my watchlist" option turned on (which I feel they should). These situations can be prevented by the use of the talkback template. Immunize (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I read your above message yesterday, but didn't think it needed a reply. I guess you wanted me to say something, since you notified me again with {{talkback}}! If you see that someone is actively editing Wikipedia based on their contributions, but you have not received a response and you really want one, then go ahead and use the template. For me, you don't need to use use the talkback template, as I will watch any page I write on. Personally, I'd only nudge someone if I see there has been no response to a question for at least a day or 2 and the person has been making contributions during that time. But to each his own. --Scott Alter 19:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I took your comment on the village pump as a request for the tool. Please read the guideline before using it. Best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the guideline, and have used it twice. See my contributions to see the diffs and ensure it was appropriate use. Immunize (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! You might like to check out huggle as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How to I access this tool? Immunize (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Immunize: Many thanks for removing the vandalism from my user page. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

It is an absolute pleasure to do so - lots of vandalism on a userpage means that you ticked off a vandal some way, which in turn means that you are doing a good job patrolling for vandalism. And to be more precise: (Good is an understatement) I must say that you are doing an excellent job on vandalism patrol yourself! I have been seeing your name pop up several times already during patrol, most of the times at article's i wanted to revert myself. You are doing exceptionally well for such a new account.

On a slightly different topic: I see you are using WP:Twinkle to revert vandalism. This is of course a personal opinion, but if your on the Windows \ Mac osX operating system you might want to give huggle a whirl. Personally i find it more convenient (Auto warning level selection, automatic reporting) and several times faster then twinkle (2 clicks to navigate to a page and revert + warn the vandal). I have no clue if you ever tried it or heard from it, but it may be worth to try it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again form reverting my userpage vandalism. On the subject of huggle, I now have rollback rights, so I am using Twinkle less for actual reverting, but I still use Twinkle for warning and reporting vandals. Although I have considered using Huggle, I have never seen the option of getting huggle on my preferences, and as a result have assumed it was only available to administrators. However, I suppose that was an incorrect assumption. How do you get huggle? Immunize (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Huggle is available to every user, as long as he or she has rollback rights (Which is quite understandable, as it allows for near-bot speed of operation). Huggle is a stand-alone tool which has to be downloaded and run locally - Unlike the other vandalism patrol tools such as Twinkle which are added to your monobook / skin.js. Dow't worry about downloading it though, as it is completely safe and open source (So you can actually check if you wish)

To start using Huggle, you need to download it first. This can be done at Wikipedia:Huggle/Download. Make sure you also do a quick check if you meet the other requirements. Normally this should not be a problem, but it is better to check just in case.

After you download it, you execute the .exe file, which will start Huggle. Fill in your username and password for wikipedia, and huggle will log in for you. After that, it will connect to the IRC recent changes feed, which may take a minute. After that Huggle will start showing edits of the left side in real-time. The interface may take a while to get used to, but it is pretty intuitive. <Spacebar> or clicking the blue arrow will show the next edit. or the big button on the top left will revert with a default warning summary - the button gives several other options as well. <R> or the big round button allows for reverts without a warning. There are plenty of options to play with. I would advice two things: Go to System => Options => And check "Enable preloading of Diffs" with a value of 5. Huggle will then pre-load up to 5 diffs which means you have no wait time while navigating to the next edit in the queue. The second option is under System => Reporting => Either check "Prompt for Report" or "Issue report automatically". This will either prompt you if a user has been warned past level 4 with the option to report them, or it will report them completely automatically if they reach this level. As said before huggle will automatically select a warning level, but this can also be overridden by using the advanced options.

I know i have been spewing quite a lot of information at once, but luckily Huggle has a Manual. Reading trough it pretty much explains everything. Other then this i can only say that Huggle requires a bit of acclimatisation before it works its wonders, but it is well worth the effort it in my eyes. Just be cautious - Huggle allows for VERY fast vandalism reversal and has little to no warnings or safety nets which means it can effectively be quite harmful as well if not used properly. Don't be afraid to use it, but be careful when you just started using it - it is very tempting to start working at top speed just to check everything which means you are quite likely to make errors. Believe me - i speak out of personal experience on that point :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and a little sidenote: "My Preferences" isn't the only way to use scripts, and i would as far as saying that it isn't even the main method. Scripts are most times added to the Special:MyPage/skin.js page (Clicking the link will give the correct wiki skin and username). For example, have a look at my own (User:Excirial/monobook.js). There are several tools including twinkle which are loaded from there. "My preferences => Gadgets" only lists a small section of the most used tools for convenience sake. A large selection of tools can only be used by manually adding the scripts to the user page. It is very simple to do so though, as it only requires copying and pasting a few lines of text in there and refreshing your browser cache. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:X6...

...is a sandbox. You shouldn't be reverting users there. –xeno^talk 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is? There are template sandboxes? Immunize (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes... See the heading... –xeno^talk 14:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not read the heading prior to reverting. Immunize (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. –xeno^talk 14:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Common knowledge does not need a reference

About your recent flagging of un-referenced content in Lymphoma, this from WP:REF: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Your flag threatens to challenge the paragraph called "Diagnosis, etiology, staging, prognosis and treatment". Are you really challenging what is written? I removed your flag. Please discuss in the talk page of the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not challenging weather or not the information is true, I am only suggesting a reference could be useful. Immunize (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the tag because I really really don't think it qualifies as common knowledge. Common knowledge is for things like "humans generally have five fingers on each hand". A good test of whether something fits the common knowledge exception or not is whether a reference can be easily found for it without needing to use academic publications. —Soap— 15:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Forget "common knowledge", it was a bad choice of word. My question to both of you: do you challenge the paragraph as it is written? If yes, please explain in the article talk page. If no, it does not need sourcing. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This entire issue is now irrelevant, as GrahamColm (talk · contribs) has added references. Immunize (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea how to use huggle

I have downloaded huggle, but I have no idea how to use it. Please help. Immunize (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am not certain I like it. Although speed is good, it seems very difficult to use, but perhaps that is just because I am new to it. Immunize (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, tell me about it. I used lupins tool before i tried Huggle, and it took quite some time to be accustomed to the different usage methods. There days i can operate it with just one hand - Q to revert and warn, R to revert, and Space to move to the next revision (And a mouse click to report a vandal). It has a LOT of buttons, bar, status screens, informations screens and counters, but these 4 operations are the most used ones. Over time operating it will actually become like a reflex, and with some practice the speed it offers is quite manageable (Though initially it may seem WAY to fast)

However, that is of course entirely my opinion. Personally i would advice trying it for a day or two without switching back and forth between other tools to grow accustomed to it, and accept that you may initially goof up at times - i certainly did. You may conclude that you simply don't like it though. There is a reason there are so many vandalism patrol tools out there :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at my contributions,did the reverts I made using Huggle look constructive? Immunize (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All of them appear to be just fine. Technically taken Huggle is just a different interface, rather then a different method of execution. Virtually every tool relies upon diffs, so if you can read those correctly all that matters is pressing the correct button. That is, in fact, the only risk with huggle - wanting to be to fast and not evaluating every diff properly. User which are blocked from editing trough Huggle (Trough removal of rollback) generally demonstrate the disability to differentiate between vandalism and valuable edits, rather then disability with the tool itself. This happens with every tool - there are plenty of users who are blocked from using other automated tools (Twinkle included) as well due to their inability to make correct decisions. In your case, i would say that is not an issue whatsoever. If anything it boils down to the question if you like this particular interface to revert vandalism, and not to abusing it :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv removl of other comments.

BAD USER! NO COOKIE! Stop reverting my removal of the cluebot template from my own userpage. 24.205.46.147 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, are you even going to read your own talk page? You have no right to prevent me from removing templates from my own user talk page AS THE TEMPLATES THEMSELVES INSTRUCT. 24.205.46.147 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The template instructs you to remove the template only if ClueBot produced a false positive. Immunize (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you review the edit thoroughly? I was bringing the article in line with WP:Censor, as the comment for the original edit states. Riffraffselbow (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like it added the word "shit" into the article, which would be considered vandalism. But, perhaps I am wrong, and this was a legitimate edit. Immunize (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, WP:3RR Riffraffselbow (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing I am engaging in edit warring? Immunize (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am stating that, in my opinion, you broke WP:3RR by making more than 3 reverts to the same page in under 24 hours when not covered by any of the exemptions presented on the page linked. Also, there is no set-in-stone policy on the removal of templates from user space, but one opinion essay can be read at Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments, an opinion I happen to agree with. In a nut-shell:Comments (including templates) are intended to communicate a message to the user, not serve to "mark" the user. Riffraffselbow (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have brought this issue up at the help desk, and am hoping that there can be some form of dispute resolution rather than a possible block for either of us. Regards Immunize (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Immunize, I think you should apologise and move on. We all make mistakes. Graham Colm (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism!

Removing an irrelevant section on the King Arthur page is not vandalism! I hate some of you wikipedia administrators trying to gain notice with your quick revisions, while you don't even take the time for intelligent thought. Please read WHY I made those changes and try to understand my reasons before reverting and declaring vandalsim. Must I restate them here?

In the King Arthur article, there is a section entitled "Name." This section merely explains the etymology of the name "Arthur." The content of this section appears to be pulled directly from a separate article called Arthur which is about the name. It has no information that relates to the subject King Arthur other than the fact that it's King Arthur. Leaving this section here would be akin to putting in a section about the origin of the name "Michael" on the page Michael Jackson.

Now that you hopefully understand my edits, I would like you to revert the King Arthur page to the last revision by me. Thank you.

69.122.120.192 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that you could revert my edit if your feelings gained consensus on the page in question's talk page, than it would be acceptable to remove that section. However, if you continue to remove this section without gaining consensus it will appear to most editors to be vandalism, and will probably be reverted. Regards. Immunize (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I told him the same thing.  A p3rson ✉ 20:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Immunize (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

View my post on the talk page, and see if that is a better solution. 69.122.120.192 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have viewed it, and have posted my opinion. Immunize (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback questions on the helpdesk

I noticed that your most recent question had rolled (pardon the pun) into the archive without being answered, so I'll repeat it here with my answer:

You asked: I assume that an edit like one and the one made on Watergate scandal qualify for rollback. 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right on both. Stop worrying! You will get a message on your talk page if someone thinks you are misusing the tool. You won't get de-rollbacked if you make one or two innocent mistakes. – ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Was this rollback, this rollback edit, and this rollback edit appropriate for rollback? Immunize (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes and yes: all clearly vandalism. Again, stop worrying, you're using rollback just fine. – ukexpat (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Neurooncology

I closed the CfD for Category:Neurooncology as 'delete', and the category will be emptied soon. Would you please take a look at whether the articles Giant cell glioblastoma and WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system should be placed in Category:Nervous system neoplasms? Thanks in advance, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have placed Giant cell glioblastoma in Category:Nervous system neoplasms, as it is an article on a specific neurological neoplasms, so it clearly fits into Category:Nervous system neoplasms. I am less certain on what about categorizing the article WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel that WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system fits into Category:Nervous system neoplasms? I am divided on the issue. Immunize (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I must admit to not knowing much about the topic, but it appears to fit based on my reading of Neoplasm#Neoplasia vs tumor and the fact that it is in Category:Neurology and Category:Types of cancer, which is a subcategory of Category:Oncology. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Burnt Meadow Mountain

Remember to reference your articles. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for fixing the vandilism on our Education in Ancient Greece page. Its really encouraging, and we appreciate your time and effort.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordwizard1 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Immunize, just wanted to drop by to say thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Administatorship

I have started an RfA for you here. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say this was really unexpected, but after thinking about it a bit i decided to accept the nomination. After some years of experience i realized adminship is not a goal on its own, and there is plenty of work that can be done without being an admin. Still, it kind of flatters me that you went out of your way to actually nominate me, and being an admin would allow me to help in a couple more area's. Besides, the (Failed) RFA i had before offered some - in retrospect - quality criticism. If it passes i can help in more area's, and if it fails i can always look at the criticism to improve myself. Either way, its a win-win situation. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Adminship nominations

FYI, while you picked a great candidate in Excirial, its a good idea to actually ask people before you start an RFA, and also its generally standard for you to write a nomination statement explaining why you think they should be an admin--Jac16888^Talk 14:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I write an nomination statement now, or is it to late? Immunize (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

go for it, maybe add a note saying it was written after the rfa was transcluded--Jac16888^Talk 14:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved your nomination statement from the "support" area to the nomination area. You may still wish to explicitly support the candidate by using a statement beginning with "#" without linebreaks between the preceding line-item. –xeno^talk 15:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I can still support the candidate despite the fact that I was the user who nominated him/her? Immunize (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Most nominators will use something like "Support as nom". –xeno^talk 15:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Davies graffiti

Hi, Immunize. I just wanted to let you know that I ran across [this graffiti on the Tom Davies article. This edit was made on 6 April 2010 by Special:Contributions/86.27.211.169 just a few minutes before more unconstructive edits were made by Special:Contributions/86.27.216.54, which you almost immediately caught and reverted. Since the earlier edit wiped out some legitimate content and it seemed to me the safest way to restore the missing text was to revert the whole thing back to [this version] from 13 February 2010. I just wanted to make sure that this didn't look like I was trying to undo your work and restore the graffiti. Please let me know there was a more appropriate way for me to do this. Thanks and have a nice day. -- Bgpaulus (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)