User talk:Nicholas Cimini

Strong Programme

You may find that someone reverts this to "strong program," but I agree with your change--after all, it's a British invention. If David Bloor spells it that way, we should, too! Please visit STS Wiki, which I think you'll enjoy. Bryan 12:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week

You voted for Human genome to be improved while it was listed on WP:IDRIVE. This article is now nominated on Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week. Please consider supporting it with your vote. --Fenice 13:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic

Only players who don't play for Celtic- yet!

Make a new section?

Discuss on Celtic talk page?

Guinnog 20:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarianism

You might want to check the section in Rangers F.C., as your last edit was in the middle of a number of anon vandalism edits. I reverted to your earlier version and then snipped and re-inserted your edit from the middle of the vandalism run. I think I got it right, but it's probably best to have another set of eyes check it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GraemeL. --Nicholas 13:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nicholas. The new section looks better there Guinnog 16:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:July 2nd 2005 043.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:July 2nd 2005 043.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 09:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Longhair, that's my photo. Taken with my camera. I uploaded it with the intention of contributing the photo to a page that was in the news at the time, but then I couldn't work out how to attach it to the relevant article. Either you could instruct me how to do that? Or we delete the photo? Thanks --Nicholas 11:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta

For fixing the vandalism on my userpage. Have a little symbol of my appreciation. Qwghlm 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries dude. --Nicholas 10:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTW project: Human genome

Human genome is the current Science Collaboration of the Week. Since you voted for this article, I thought you might be interested in contributing to it. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 03:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stem cell

You have reverted the stem cell article on 3 separate occasions in 24 hours, without discussing it on the talk page, which is a violation of Wikipedia etiquette. I don't like to sound threatening but, please stop this, or I'll have to take the matter further. Llull 11:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you revert then my contributions 3 times with appear in the discussion page? Saying in the summary "my version is better" and nothing more? You are in the same same situation that I am. Llull 11:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made 2 simple reverts and on the 3rd occassion I significantly changed the language to take account of your comments. So, we are not in the same situation.--Nicholas 11:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was your 1st edit [1], this was your second edit [2], and this was your 3rd edit [3], all 3 edits took place within the space of 24 hours. Now, I made two simple reverts and on the 3rd occasion I significantly changed the language to take account of your concerns. Thus, please do not accuse me of acts that I did not commit.--Nicholas 12:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "this isn't proper English", and I change the sentence and put another different. You reverted the sentence adding again the same sentence that I thought unadequated and you also think unadaqueated for the opponents. Then you said "2nd revert" when the sentence was different and you included again the same initial sentence. I did three different changes and no one revert trying to eliminate the no neutral expression with my poor English level. While you reintroduced twice the same twice sentence instead correting the mistakes. Thus, please do not accuse me of acts that I did not commit. Llull 12:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stem cell 2

Hey Nicholas, I've been pretty pressed for time lately, so sorry I haven't looked at the current state of the stem cell article until now. Thanks for asking for my opinion. --Nectar 15:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think summary style works well for a general topic like this so that readers can choose for themselves the level of detail in each section. The alternative would probably be not to undo summary style, but rather to expand the treatments and controversy summary sections.. to at most double their present length, I think. My opinion, though, is that the present sections do a good and concise job.--Nectar 16:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "revert to previous version by myself, recent edits confuse the issue with imprecise and biased terminology - not to mention extremely US-centric."

While I agree there are parts of it that are US-centric, I disagree that the earlier version is confusing, imprecise and biased. I don't want to get in an edit war with you, so what's the next step? --K. Sargent 10:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Celtic

So my edits annoy you re Glasgow Celtic.

Too fucking bad, IGNORAMUS.

DROP DEAD, DAGO -- GO BACK TO ITALY AND SEE IF YOU CAN KEEP THE LANGUAGE ALIVE, OR BETTER YET LEARN ALBANIAN.

R. Sieger rms125a@hotmail.com

That's funny! --Nicholas 09:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an RfC on Mr. Sieger's behaviour which you can find here. Demiurge 20:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 18:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adult stem cells

Hi, since you have done a lot of work on this article, I was wondering what you thought of my suggestion for a thorough rewrite of adult stem cells (see its talk page). The current article contains plenty of information but I feel is not structured in a very encyclopedic style. I would centre it on the biology of adult stem cells and summarise what is known about stem cells in different organs striving for completeness. The article also needs more references. The existing ones could be collated in a separate section and appropriately footnoted.

Nicholas, did you have any luck contacting a developer about Stem cells? We really need someone who knows MediaWiki software to look at it, but I can't use IRC to get in touch with them. Peter Z.^Talk 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found this [4], will report the problem there. Peter Z.^Talk 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stem cell controversy

We are headed to a 3rd revert. All your comments are reasonable criticisms (I don't agree with you, but they are reasonable, and I respect your POV), but that means you edit what's there, just as I did, and improve it. It doesn't mean you revert to an old version. The old version was slanted toward anti-ESC research and left out many of the important controversies. The new version includes them. Even though I didn't like some of what was there, I left it and added comment to it. As a Wikipedian, I trust you to do the same. --K. Sargent 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV template

Since you reverted to the old version, after another editor made a new attempt, the 'NPOV-section' should have been returned. The NPOV template should be left up until more views are heard, or significant changes are made. The current three editors are against hESC research. This is clearly apparent from the sources used and the lack of opposing views, in the section. - This unsigned comment was left by Ksargent on the 25 of July.

Stem Cell Research debate - debatepedia

Noticed you made alot of changes to the stem cell controversy page. You may want to take a look at the Debatepedia (wiki debate encyclopedia) debate on stem cell research.[5] It seems like a better forum for grinding out these debates.Loudsirens 22:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disability, Genetic Politics and Reproductive Technology

Hello Nicholas. Thank you for your compliments and offer. Since my access to the Internet is very limited these days, let me get back to you as soon as possible with an answer when this situation resolves itself. That being said, if I can't help you, I strongly recommend that you contact Dr. James Hughes at james.hughes@trincoll.edu since I am sure he can answer all your questions more substantively and eloquently that I ever could. ;) --Loremaster 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to work on your research wiki in light of my lack of regular access to the Internet but also my new work schedule. Good luck! --Loremaster 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nicholas. I'd be happy to help, but I also have some internet connection issues. However, I think I might be able to contribute in some degree. I might not be able to log on every single day, but I believe I can guarantee 1-2 days a week. Is that ok with you? :-) See ya Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== carer==

Help needed again please! 86.133.43.23 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtin edits

Thank you very much for the helpful advice, Nicholas.Ken Hirschkop (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down's syndrome discussion pages

I don't mind if you revert my edits. Although I've seen how silly comments like those are often reverted. I doubt this editor will even come back to check the page anyhow. But I suppose It doesn't matter, all the best. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Stem cell

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The artcile appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jezhotwells, I've not contributed to the stem cell article for at least three or four years: attempts to reach agreement proved pretty difficult then and I'm too busy just now. Nicholas (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, I have notified other contributors and projects, other editors are working on the article and the copyvio problems appear to have been solved. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]