User talk:OccamzRazor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, OccamzRazor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username 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! Tim Vickers 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Coconut oil ever tried it?

Moved discussion to Talk:Coconut oil#Coconut oil ever tried it.3F OccamzRazor 01:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bioinformatic Harvester

Ivo (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reinserted the link to bioinformatic harvester AGAIN harvester. Harvester is known in the bioinformatic community as "harvester"...used by 10.000 scientists every day... please put it up on DISCUSSION BEFORE deleting information your are not certain of...thanks

Atkins

We can discuss the inclusion of the diabetes cat on the Atkins talk page. Right now, I think it belongs there and I see no reason for its removal. Dreadstar † 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the diabetes cat for now, you're right, the sub-category "low carb diets" may do the trick. Dreadstar † 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence in checking further. OccamzRazor 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up. We may have to clean up those cats a bit, I'm not sure if all low-carb diets address diabetes or if the ones that don't mention it should...<sigh>...more work to do...;) Dreadstar † 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I put the diabetes cat back because the Atkins diet clearly has addressed and has had studies regarding diabetes. Diabetes is mentioned in the current article, and I will be more than happy to find more sources - if only in the Atkins books themselves. As a matter of fact, Atkins last book was titled Atkins Diabetes Revolution. Dreadstar † 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Using PROD

The appropriate use of PROD ... {{subst:prod|This article should be deleted because... (or other text that expresses the reasoning for nominating for deletion)}}. Dual placement on the talk page is ok - but the reason or a brief version of it should be included as a parameter for the prod template. More information ... Template:prod. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I must not have the right template. The one I used is "subst:prod", which I got from what I thought was a main wiki-maintained page on how to propose aticles for deletion that would probably be uncontested. That template doesn't have an area to explain why the article should be deleted, which is why I posted my rationale on the discussion page. If there is more required to the process, that is not made clear. Furthermore I don't yet know what "PROD" means. I'm sure it's frustrating for experienced editors to deal with relative newbies, but the site does not make it easy to ascertain what to do in various situations. So what do I need to do next to move this obviously unencylopedic article toward deletion? Thanks. OccamzRazor

I see in one of your recent edits that you might have figured this out already. Templates that take parameters might be presented in explanatory text as {{prod}} for instance and the addition of parameters can take one of two forms dependent upon the code. Regardless of the detail, parameters are set off from the template name and one another by "|" (see Pipe (character)). In some cases a parameter label is needed, such as {{cite news|author=Bugs Bunny}}; in the case of Template:Prod, no parameter label is needed. The "subst:" addition tells wikimedia to add the complete content of the template as static text rather than transcluding the template with text brought in via link upon each page refresh; see WP:SUBST for more information on this. So {{subst:prod}} and {{prod}} and {{subst:prod|here is my reason}} refer to the same template; the latter format, with 'subst' and a reason, is the preferred method for use.

An explanation of the PROD deletion workstream can be found at WP:PROD; "PROD" stands for "Proposed Deletion" and it is a recent addition to Wikipedia processes. It was introduced to relieve some of the enormous workload of WP:AFD in cases where speedy deletion was not appropriate and the case for deletion was not intrinsically controversial (for instance, deletion of high school articles are almost always controversial and would not be a proper application of PROD). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Yes, I went WP hunting and tried several things using preview until I think I figured it out. It's nice when experienced editors help guide us newbies when they see we don't quite get it because the "how to's" are not well explained IMO. I've done so much editing in the last week, that I've learned a lot. I really like to see quality comprehensive NPOV articles and enjoy it when I can help make them so. It was really nice to get my first "atta boy" (see below). Regards OccamzRazor 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Paleolithic style diet

Hi OccamzRazor, thanks for editing the article! You've made some important changes. I will proceed to correct the weasel sentences and will add sources where I can. Cheers! Phenylalanine 12:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it's nice to be appreciated. The way it was written when I first saw it gave me the impression of a bizarre fringe diet where people are encouraged to eat raw game meat. I still don't know much about it, but I wanted to at least give it a chance to be explained in a way that people could understand what it's all about. It's still way too long with far too many extraneous comments, sections and even references. To be taken seriously, I would suggest a pared down article that truly gives all of the relevant facts including criticisms, and explains things like whether or not meat is to be cooked. A debate is counterproductive to all. I think it would also be good to state the names of specific diets that conform to the Paleolithic style, but without promoting them - just information. Another suggestion is to avoid wiki-link spamming on other articles. I deleted at least a dozen or more such links and admit that it made me very suspicious about the legitimacy of the diet. Good luck. OccamzRazor 20:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can you give me some specifics on how to improve the article? Which sections are extraneous? How would you reorganize the article? Would you include a "criticisms" section, instead of the current "health" section? You recommend mentioning the diets that conform to the paleo diet, yet you deleted all the wikilinks to the related diets at the bottom of the article... Also, it is explained in the "food preparation" section whether food should be cooked. I would really appreciate any feedback you have regarding the article. Thanks very much! Phenylalanine 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi OccamzRazor, the article Paleolithic style diet has been included in the category low-carb diet. I disagree with this move (See the discussion page). Your opinion on this matter would be of great interest. Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Health effects of homogenized milk

this regards the procedural decline of PROD here

comment directed to User:Fg2 ... this is an FYI copy of material posted at User talk:Fg2

I will not be reversing or otherwise changing the impact of your editing with regard to this article; I just wanted to provide context for the recent edits. I removed the PROD notice because it did not contain a reason. I was contacted by the person who placed the original PROD and we were working out the appropriate usage of PROD in this case in that I was assisting the editor to insert a reason for the PROD. My removal of the PROD was procedural and I don't think it is outside acceptable behavior to allow re-PRODding after a procedural decline. It is unfortunate that you took the step you did - not inappropriate based on the letter of the policy, but unfortunate in that I was trying to help an editor to best use this procedure. I do understand that an addition to the edit summary that specifically indicated that rePRODding would be acceptable under the circumstances would be OK would have been the right course for me to take. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for copying me on your note to User talk:Fg2. Being that you removed my original PROD because it was inadequately done (no reason in the template - just the talk page) and not because you objected to the article being deleted, it seemed my new properly done PROD stating valid reasons for deletion should have been allowed to stay. No one has objected to removing this article and I doubt that anyone would have. It was created as a POV fork and clearly doesn't belong on wikipedia.

It's my understanding that the reason for not reinserting a PROD is that someone has objected and therefore the next step would be the AfD process. However, this was not the case here. It seems that there should be some procedural understanding that if a PROD was deleted on a technicality instead of an objection to the article being deleted that it can be reinserted. Because such a concept does not seem to exist yet, I would suggest that when editors see a PROD request that doesn't have a reason in the template box, that they inform the user who placed it to let them know that it is lacking and give them a chance to update the template before deleting it.

As you see, I ended up merging it with another article, but it really should have been allowed to die its own death. Regards OccamzRazor 21:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Chelation therapy

Tagging articles with no description of the issues isn't helpful; please provide an explanation for the tag on the article talk page so that others can improve the article. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The tag for "Unbalanced" is self explanatory and your reason for removal seems POV based. Considering that with the exception of a small number of clear lead poisoning cases, chelation therapy is considered quackery by virtually all of mainstream medicine, this article is one of the most unbalanced, non-NPOV articles I have seen on wiki. It doesn't even call the practice "controversial." One gets the impression that this is a completely legitimate therapy for all kinds of ailments. I don't have time to deal with it now, but will probably end up elevating discussion of this extremely unbalanced article. OccamzRazor 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OccamzRazor, I advise you to exercise caution in labeling any editor or edit POV-based or tendentious without ample proof or discussion; in this case, there was and is neither. Specifically, in this case, we happen to agree that chelation therapy as used in alternative medicine is likely quackery, but the article also has to discuss the legitimate and approved uses of chelation. Further, on Wiki, we must source our edits to reliable sources. Adding the word "controversial" without a source won't help much when the serious issues with the improper use of chelation therapy are already covered in the article. Certainly they can be covered better; supply reliable sources and I'll be happy to help work them in. And yes, you need to explain balance issues when you add a tag so others can discern what needs to be remedied. As an example, I might have assumed you were a pro-chelation advocate objecting to the fact that I had just removed a lot of unsourced quackery. For now, I have attempted to clean up the article, removing a whole lot of unsourced quackery and leaving only that which was sourced. If your goal is to improve the article, I suggest you supply concrete sources and remedies that we can all work on including. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging of Blossoming Lotus

Please use Talk:Blossoming Lotus to discuss why you think the article reads as an advertisement and how it can and should be improved. —Viriditas | Talk 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an article about a restaurant that does not seem to meet the notability requirements of wikipedia. OccamzRazor 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please describe the exact criteria that it does not meet using the guidelines in question. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Information regarding conflict of interest

This message is for informative purposes only. As a new user you may not be aware of WP:COI.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no COI whatsoever regarding any article I have edited or created on wikipedia. Like everyone, I have personal biases, but do my best to see that articles show a NPOV. I'm curious as to what COI you think I might have. OccamzRazor 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above, "this message is for informative purposes only", however, it is my contention that you are unusually close to some articles, and in a few particular instances, your editing could be described as tendentious. Having been here for a while, I have seen this pattern a number of times, and in each case the editor had a conflict of interest. Now, I'm not saying that you do, but rather I find your contribution history reflecting this aforementioned pattern and I wanted to warn you of the COI guideline in case you weren't aware of it. —Viriditas | Talk 22:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To help me learn how to be a better editor, it would be helpful if you would state the specific articles where you think my editing shows that I am overly close to the subject or has seemed tenditious. I've done a lot of editing in the two months I've been here and really don't know which ones you're referring to. Perhaps I wasn't doing a good job of neutralizing my opinions. OccamzRazor 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's easy to do, but often that type of criticism can degenerate into personal attacks. To be perfectly honest, I'm having trouble assuming good faith with you at the moment considering that in a recent discussion with User:Ceyockey on this talk page, you thanked him for helping you, but in the very same edit, you maliciously changed his user name to Steatorrhea, and unless someone actually went through the diffs like I did, nobody would have found that hidden personal attack.[1] So at face value, you appear to say one thing, but do quite another. —Viriditas | Talk 23:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My, you certainly don't assume good faith to accuse me of "maliciously" changing a user name in an edit. The simple explanation is that I had originally written a longer response to User:Ceyockey and mentioned that I was proud of being able to find a good redirect for an article entitled Anal leakage which I redirected to Steatorrhea. The steatorrhea article should have mentioned that it can be caused as a side effect of certain prescribed diet medications or of consuming artifical fat. I thought it was funny but decided that info was not relevant to my response and deleted it before saving the page. Obviously a fragment remained and appeared to be embedded in Ceyokey's user name. However, this was only apparent when you look at the specific revision. Even before your edit accusing me of a stealth personal attack, the term never showed up on the readable page and the link to Cyokey's talk page was never affected.

Again, I really do want to understand which articles I have edited that have raised such suspicion in you toward me that you would accuse me of a COI, malicious actions and take the time to look at each edit on my talk page. It would be in the best interest of wikipedia if you would educate me. I'm not picking a fight - just not understanding the point you've been trying to make. If I act maliciously after you provide such information, then feel free to accuse me again. Regards OccamzRazor 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How did "User talk:Ceyockey" get changed to "User talk:Steatorrhea"? That's an incredible coincidence that it actually translates to "User talking shit", don't you think? What's the simplest explanation? —Viriditas | Talk 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained the situation - it seems a fragment from the deleted part of my response might have remained but I have no idea how it came to look the way it did in the revision history of my talk page. In fact, it took me over 30 minutes to figure out what you were talking about regarding this. If you look at the revision history for Anal leakage article and the revision history for Steatorrhea article, you will see the edits I made. I think they improved the wiki coverage of the subject.

Because you have clearly dismissed any assumption of good faith on my part, you seem to reject this simple explanation. Ceyokey was being very helpful and defended me to another editor. Why in the world would I do something so stupid as to intentionally change a reference to his/her talk page? In my hundreds of edits, have you seen anything else (erroneous or not) that would lead you to believe that I would intentionally do such a thing? OccamzRazor 06:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in continuing this discussion at this time. The COI warning was posted for informative purposes, and you are now aware of it, so that if it comes up again, you cannot plead ignorance. And as I predicted, any further discussion about this topic is beginning to devolve into personal attacks. To respond to your last point, please don't pretend I don't know what it is going on. Prior to your response to Ceyockey on 20:30, 10 November 2007,[2] you did appear frustrated with Ceyockey, and expressed it as such on User talk:Ceyockey on 01:00, 9 November.[3] You had proposed deleting Health effects of homogenized milk at 23:31, 6 November 2007,[4], but Ceyockey declined your prod at 00:52, 9 November.[5] You then tried prodding the article again beginning at 04:52, 10 November [6], and your prod was declined yet again, this time by User:Fg2 at 02:14, 11 November.[7] I don't think I need to continue at this time, as it beyond obvious that you were annoyed, as you subsequently redirected the entire article to United States raw milk debate at 02:52, 11 November. [8] I think the evidence speaks for itself. —Viriditas | Talk 07:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to be helpful or just argumentative? Ceyokey simply copied me on the comment he/she left on the talk page of User:Fg2 stating that because the PROD request was removed for technical reasons and not an objection, that it was unfortunate that User:Fg2 removed it just because it was removed previously (a second techicality). Ceyokey was defending the second PROD. To the contrary of being "clearly annoyed," I was truly appreciative that Ceyokey went out of his/her way to be helpful and informative in a way that no other editor has done. Furthermore, my original comment left on Ceyokey's talk page did not show any annoyance or hostility - I simply asked for information [9], which Ceyokey provided.

I have also not done anything in this conversation series that could be construed as a personal attack on you and I still don't know even the general topic where you think I've shown evidence of having a COI. Because, as I stated earlier, I don't have a COI regarding any of the articles to which I've contributed, I'm not concerned about defending myself - I'd just like to understand what I've done that's made you so convinced I'm lying. You state your purpose was to be informative, so please enlighten me. OccamzRazor 13:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to have the last word. This conversation is over. I stated what I believed above. As for particular instances of COI, I said that I wasn't going to go there at this time, and that the warning was for informative purposes only, as I perceived you getting very close and cozy with some subjects. Happy editing. —Viriditas | Talk 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out that your claim, that User_talk:Steatorrhea "was only apparent when you look at the specific revision" and that "the term never showed up on the readable page and the link to Cyokey's talk page was never affected" is false. Please take a look at this diff: [10]. The change did show up on your talk page, and the link to Ceyockey's talk page was affected. Perhaps you didn't do it maliciously. Perhaps there was a server hiccup, or you somehow hit copy and paste. I guess we'll never know. I would like to assume good faith. —Viriditas | Talk 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I again checked the specific "user talk" link as it existed following my apparently polluted edit and you are correct that the link to Ceyokey's talk was affected even though it looked completelely normal. Clicking on it would have led to a non-existent page - Editing User talk:Steatorrhea, not exactly your accusation "that it actually translates to "User talking shit." I doubt that anyone else in the world even tried that obscure link from my talk page.

Again, I ask for a list the specific articles I have edited or created that has caused you to make so many accusations against me. If you are unwilling to name the specific articles would you at least state the general area where you think I have a COI? I remain totally baffled. OccamzRazor 06:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

See above. —Viriditas | Talk 07:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

Why have you moved the epilepsy treatment to a Ketogenic diet (epilepsy)? The main article for any subject should focus on the main topic. A quick Google search will confirm this. The ketogenic diet has been a treatment for epilepsy for nearly 90 years and continues to be an important therapy for difficult epilepsy. Please move the article back, and create Ketogenic diet (fad), or whatever, for the alternatives. Regards, Colin°^Talk 23:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A "ketogenic diet" is any diet that induces the production of ketones or ketosis. Such diets are used and researched for many legitimate medical purposes and are not simply "diet fads." Your mention of The "Ketongenic Diet" is about one ketogenic dietary program developed specifically for the treatment of Epilepsy by John Hopkins. It has very specific criteria that are not necessarily part of "ketogenic diets" used for other medical conditions. The disambiguation redirects are included to direct the readers to the correct page, so there should be no confusion. Since not all "ketogenic diets" are for Epilepsy, it is not correct to use the generic scientific term, "ketogenic diet," for that purpose. If you don't like the article title I used, alternative names for the ketogenic diet for Epilepsy could be The Ketogenic Diet Program, Johns Hopkins Ketogenic Diet, Ketongenic Diet for Epilepsy, etc. The main point is that not all ketogenic diets are the same as the specific one designed to treat Epilepsy. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While your first sentence is correct, there rest is largely mistaken. The use of a ketogenic diet to treat epilepsy is by far and away the most significant indication for this therapy. Other uses are theoretical (cancer) or at research stages. It is most certainly not a weight loss diet, and must always be performed under clinical supervision. Long-term use of the diet in adults has not been studied. The diet was first proposed and named by researchers at the Mayo Clinic in the 1920s. Johns Hopkins is merely the main US focus of current research. It is widely used throughout the world, and has several variants (though the overall aim, to induce ketosis, and to force the body to burn fat rather than carbs remains). The suggested variant names you propose are not widely used and reflect your misunderstanding. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

The article wasn't in a great shape before you edited it. I intend to gradually rewrite this article, following WP:MEDMOS guidelines for therapies (drugs), and it can include indications outside epilepsy and current research into the diet. There is absolutely no need to move the epilepsy aspect to a side article.

It is polite to discuss page moves and merges prior to acting on them. You have replaced a long-standing and linked-to article with a dictionary definition and a couple of newspaper claims of a theoretical cancer aspect. I shall be asking an admin to undo these changes.

Regards, Colin°^Talk 10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I echo Colin's sentiment about your recent actions. Are you are aware, there are multiple ketogenic diets. The old article tried to cover all of them. Now you have left a small stub that does not do justice to the subject and is inferior to the content you moved.

Could I ask you to undo the page move, or at least make more than just a nominal attempt at returning the relevant content to ketogenic diet? In general, complicated moves like this should be managed with a formal request for page move (unless you are genuinely convinced that the move will be uncontroversial). Thank you. JFW | T@lk 14:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The category "ketogenic diet" may encompass aspects of the Atikins and other low carb diets. The noun "ketogenic diet" is exclusively used as a medical therapy, and its main indication is refractory epilepsy in children.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions nutshell: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." A Google or PubMed search will confirm that the medical therapy should be the main topic of the ketogenic diet article.

I believe it requires an admin to move the page (with all its history) back to the proper place. Copy/paste is explicitly discouraged. Colin°^Talk 15:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

JFW has offered (as an admin) to do the necessary page moves, if you agree. If you intend(ed) ketogenic diet to be a discussion on all diets that involve some inducement of ketosis, then I think there is too great an overlap with Low-carbohydrate diet, which effectively uses that as its definition. The category Category:Ketogenic diet could be created, but again, there's overlap with Category:Low-carb diets.

I think there is plenty room to expand Low-carbohydrate diet to give a full explanation of the ketogenic aspects of a lifestyle diet for weight loss or improved health. If you agree to the move back, I'd be happy for a note at the top of the article to say something like:

This article discusses a dietary medical therapy. For information on ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets as a lifestyle choice, see Low-carbohydrate diet.

or some similar phrasing. Colin°^Talk 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OccamzRazor, please stop what you are doing and discuss. The way to edit wikipedia articles is not to demolish existing text, move the waste to a side article and then proceed, over a protracted period, to build an alternative. The original article was a #2 Google hit, was OK but not brilliant, but is now completely worthless. I weep. Colin°^Talk 23:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring other editors

I note Colin's requests above and my comments. I'm surprised you are not addressing Colin's concerns. Unless you can urgently respond to these comments I am in a mind to make the changes he has requested. JFW | T@lk 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Given your lack of response to Colin's requests, I have moved the "new" ketogenic diet page to your userspace, and it now exists at User:OccamzRazor/Ketogenic diet. This preserves your work and the page history, but removes it from the mainspace until further notice.

As explained above, moves like the one in question should not be performed against consensus, and on reviewing the evidence I completely agree with Colin that "ketogenic diet" without a modifier refers primarily to the epilepsy diet. There are other ways of mentioning alternative uses of the ketogenic diet and the fact that certain popular diets may work by stimulating ketogenesis.

You are free to question Colin's (and my) opinion and actions, but I would strongly recommend not making any further moves until things have been discussed in extenso. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of creating a very detailed respose to both you and Collin for over an hour. Your move during my response creation caused me to lose over an hour of editing which I kept adding to after doing a "preview." Because of your accerlerated action, I will have to recreate my responses here from scratch again. Just so you know, I was explaining in my responses that my edits to the article were specifically in response to your challenge that I had left only a stub.

What is your extreme rush to address this issue? The reason I used the "underconstruction" tag was to allow me to build a page that would address all current issues regarding ketogenic articles. I trusted that would avoid such a move as yours. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The "underconstruction" tag is not intended to block editors who disagree with you. Demolish and build is not the model for wiki writing, effectively delete and rewrite, line by tedious line, a #2 Google result on a not insignificant topic. Build on what is there. If you have radical changes in mind, suggest them and use your sandbox to prototype and demonstrate. Your work (bar perhaps an hour) is safe in your userpage above. Rather than try to rebuild the article yourself from scratch, please discuss where you want it to go, what you think is wrong/insufficient in the current article, and consider the alternatives (such as the lo-carb article). This is a wiki, please collaborate. (I'm off to bed) Colin°^Talk 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for only responding now to your above reply. To be frank, the above messages were only left as a matter of courtesy. Normally, controversial moves not performed through WP:RM can be undone by any admin without getting permission from the person who performed the move. The response to these queries should not take a full hour to compose, because it is really a very simple issue as demonstrated by Colin's evidence.

This said, I appreciate your hard work on many diet-related articles, and was wondering if you had any comments on the obesity page. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Zero-Carb Diet

Hi OccamzRazor, I just saw that you deleted the research indicating a high mortality from coronary heart disease in the Inuit. For what reason? Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the information for two reasons:

(1) I couldn't find the text of the study in English anywhere on the web to verify what was claimed and,

(2) after further researching this article, I believed it was irrelevant, partially because:

• The article's discussion page shows that the article was created by someone who was having a good experience being on this diet, which is mainly promoted on a blog. However, the article's creator admits he didn't have the experience or inclination to document the article. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zero-Carb_Diet#negatives
• I tried to see if I could salvage the article with numerous edits, but the more I looked into it, the more I found that this "diet" is just one example of many fringe diets with no scientific evidence to back-up its claims.
• I expect the article to eventually be merged with another or nominated for deletion, perhaps by me.

Signed by OccamzRazor (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) I think this stems from a misunderstanding. Ströhle, Wolters and Hahn did not do the original research, they just mentioned it to prove a point in their letter to the editor (see Paleolithic-style diet). So they don't really have to be indicated in the "Zero-carb diet" article. The relevant sources are below:

"hunters like the Inuits, who traditionally obtain most of their dietary energy from wild animals and therefore eat a low-carbohydrate diet,

Ho KJ, Mikkelson B, Lewis LA, Feldman SA, Taylor CB. (1972 Aug). "Alaskan arctic Eskimo: responses to a customary high fat diet". Am J Clin Nutr. 25 (8): 737–45. PMID 5046723. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

seem to have a high mortality from coronary heart disease,

Bjerregaard P, Young TK, Hegele RA (2003 Feb). "Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit--what is the evidence?". Atherosclerosis. 166 (2): 351–7. doi:10.1016/S0021-9150(02)00364-7. PMID 12535749. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)"

(2) Information related to this dietary approach can be found in the articles "Inuit" and "Vilhjalmur Stefansson". Personally, I don't find this diet to be irrelevant (can the traditional diet of the Inuit be called irrelevant?) and I would be inclined to oppose any deletion or merging of the article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbonne International

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Arbonne International, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Arbonne International. Argyriou (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the author of this article and simply added a tag. I did not object to it's deletion. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Raw Milk Debate

There absolutely is an ongoing debate about raw milk. Pasteurization has been proven to kill off beneficial bacteria and other nutrients in the milk. The worry about pathogens is only in mass produced milk with animals housed in filthy conditions. Healthy, happy cows and goats that are allowed pasture do NOT produce unsafe milk. Pasteurization also kills beneficial nutrients in eggs and honey.

Even if you are correct that the debate was resolved 40 years ago, that does not mean pasteurization is beneficial. 40 years ago, margarine was touted as a healthy alternative to butter. 20 years ago, during the low fat fad, trans fats were welcomed as a way to replace saturated fat. Your handle being a twist on Occam's Razor, I am surprised that you would support a complicated thing over a simple, more natural one. 74.160.5.53 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Video on demand

Good idea on cleaning up Video on demand. Every other cable service in existence must have VOD by now. -Colfer2 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems to be a very out of date article that needs updating. I hope that others will participate in updating it. OccamzRazor (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Schmidt Baking

See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Schmidt+Baking%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1998&as_hdate=2001&lnav=d0&ldrange=1941,1997 for some articles from Google News. --Eastmain (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you added content and references to the article, so I removed my tags for notability and sources. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet (generic)

OccamzRazor,

There is no need for Ketogenic diet (generic). All medical use and research can be covered by Ketogenic diet but you must bear in mind that to date the only clinically approved use is as a treatment for epilepsy. The other stuff is at a very, very early research stage. It doesn't deserve an article on its own, and we don't create "XXX (generic)" articles anyway. I have suggested this new article be merged. I do intend to expand the currently limited discussion of "other uses and research" on the ketogenic diet page, and I've got the sources to do so. Colin°^Talk 08:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company

I dispute your removal of several category tags from the TCI article. Whilst the company is indeed defunct, it has strong links with the economic history of Alabama (especially Birmingham), was one of the first listings on the Dow Jones Average and was one of the most important steel manufacturing companies in the US. It therefore deserves a place on those respective listing pages. Considering that other defunct companies are categorized according to their history, I will revert your changes unless you have any strong objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grarap (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have stong objections. Just because other other defunct companies may be improperly categorized, doesn't make it right for you to revert proper edits to this article. I only removed categories that are used for going concerns. Defunct companies do not belong in categories for active businesses as that reduces the value of such categories. If you want to link this article, which I note that you created, to "history" categoriers, please do so.

There are categories specifically for defunct companies and that is where this article belongs and is currently pointed. I hope you don't try to re-link to categories intended only for going concerns to this article. OccamzRazor (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your aggression is disagreeable. Considering that defunct businesses from the Carnegie Steel Company to the North American Company to Enron are listed under so-called 'active-concern' categories, I have no reason to believe that the TCI article is an exception to the pattern. I have no intention of starting an edit war, so please present me with the wikipedia rule that justifies your position. As for my own, I quote the Dow Jones Category page:

This category lists the stocks that have been or are now on that list.

QED. And please reply on my talk page. grarap (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)grarap

It was not my intention to be agressive or disagreeable, however you wanted to know if I possess a strong opinion about the matter and I admitted that I do. In my opinion, improper and over-categorization of articles reduces the usefulness of categories and ultimately the value of wikipedia. That's why I've spent quite a bit of time trying to contribute to wikipedia by cleaning up categorizations. Yours is my only complaint out of dozens of company articles in which I've removed categories I see as inappropriate or excessive. I think there should be a category for defunct companies that were previously part of various indicies or were listed on various exchanges instead of including defunct companies in categories for meant for companies currently listed. If every company that was ever part of the DJIA were categorized there, how useful would the category be? OccamzRazor (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you disagree with the system, but unless there has been a violation of the wikipedia policy, you have no right to remove content from articles on technical grounds. Now, if you were to actually create new defunct companies categories, and were to move existing articles into them, then I would have no problem with relocating TCI. However, by removing categories from articles without suggesting to those involved any suitable replacements, you're essentially sabotaging their work! grarap (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)grarap

I don't disagree with the system, I support it. You may wish to review WP:Ownership of articles and WP:Be bold. Everyone's work on WP is subject to being re-edited, deleted and changed in any way in accordance with WP policies and edit guidelines. The goal is to collaboratively build a quality site. Disagreements are common and there are processes to resolve them as well as forums to discuss current and potential policies. Perhaps you would like to participate in improving issues surrounding WP:categories. OccamzRazor (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was that you weren't editing in accordance with WP policies. You were a little too bold, attempting to reform the categories system without consulting other users. That's just not on in a system where, like it or not, people take ownership of work they have put effort into and insist on being part of the democratic process. Aside from that, I'm glad to see that you're assisting in tidying up the TCI article for GA review. I have no doubt that we'll pass. Just a tip though - always format references to websites like this: Thanks for your edits anyhow! grarap (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)grarap

It seems your unhappiness with me is regarding the categories I removed from this article that you you created, not my content editing of articles. Rather than trying to "reform the category system," I am trying to make existing categories relevant and usable for navigation and search. Despite our categorization disagreement, I do believe you are developing an excellent article and, as you have noted, I have done some minor editing and provided a qualified reliable source (RS) reference on the DJIA to replace your citation of another wikipedia article as a reference (which is not considered a WP:RS), to help you in your "Good Article" review.

It appears to me that you are genuinely working to create a good article, however, you might want to lighten up on your posts to editors who may have minor disagreements about things such as appropriate categorization. You've been rather accusatory that my edits are in violation of unspecified WP "policies", when in fact there are few, if any, actual WP policies that govern categorization.

In the future, if you want to accuse other editors of violating WP policies, I suggest that you cite an actual WP policy that is being violated. In your search to find policies you think others are violating, you may find that there is no such policy. In this case, I don't believe I violated any actual WP policy. Please cite one or more if you can.

I wish you the best in your GA review and wouldn't hesitate to add additional content or references to help you achieve that goal. OccamzRazor (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you've been reading my messages properly. I never once accused you of breaking any WP policies. I was actually asking you to present me with a WP policy that justified your removal of categories from the TCI page, a move which in my opinion was unnecessary and detrimental to the quality of the article. If I've appeared accusatory, it's because of my frustration at the total arbitrariness of that edits that you have made to the TCI article. I appreciate all assistance, but I did not consider your actions helpful in any way. However, your more recent kindness grants you much love. I hope that the matter can now rest. grarap (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)grarap

"

You have stated that my editing is not "in accordance with WP policies," without stating which policies you believe my editing violates. There are no WP "policies" for categories that I am aware of, but there are "guidelines," (see WP:Categories). One guideline is: "Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." I restored one category and don't believe further discussion about this will be productive. You are free to add any categories you want, however others may remove them if they think the article has exessive or inappropriate categories.

Regarding the article itself, I note that you use another WP article as a source, which is not considered a WP:RS, especially since that article itself is unsourced (the one ref is a dead link). This may hurt your chances in a GA review. OccamzRazor (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

URS Corp's Intro and M&A

by the look of your contribs, u appear to be "companies buff".

1. maybe u've seen it for other firms, but URS's intro is basically a rip-off of their official website. user 98.199.114.13 copied-and-pasted 3 paragraphs from URS's history page. i can let him/her know that that's plagiarism and warn him/her about breaking wiki rules, but if u've seen this more often then u might know how to do it more politely. it could be a current employee boasting about the firm.

2. also, u revised an entry under M&A's, but its out of order. normally, entries are in chronological order (older to newer), just as in the history section. the flip-flop is easy, but there's also the issue of repetition and omission. the 1999 merger is already mentioned in the history section, along with the 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 acquisitions. perhaps all m&a's should be moved to M&A and the duplicate entry removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivansevil (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was cleaning out some inappropriate categorizations of companies (especially "Economy of ..." categories) and have included some other edits in specific articles I found along the way. One company article that did not assert notability was a subsidiary of URS Corp., so I redirected the article there and edited the URS article accordingly, I may not have paid sufficient attention as to where I inserted my edit, so feel free to rearrange. I don't know anything else about the company.

Unfortunately, sometimes people do create and/or edit articles about themselves or their own company in violation of WP:COI. It's possible that happened with URS. By checking the whois link on annoymous editors, you can sometime find proof such as I found with e.Digital Corporation which I documented on the e.Digital discussion page.

If parts of the article are a cut and paste of the company's website, that may be a violation of wikipedia's copyright violation policy. In those cases, you can revert the edits and cite WP:copyvio in your edit summary. OccamzRazor (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate cats

Why did you remove the city category from a (defunct) college[11] and a radio station?[12] Those seem appropriate to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In order for categories to be effective, it's important to avoid overcategorization. To list every organziation that resides or once resided in a city in the city's category, would make the category unweildly. In this case, I removed a defunct college and a college radion station. I don't believe that any company or organization belongs in a city category unless it is a government org, historical landmark, etc. There are categories for "companies based in... for that purpose. OccamzRazor (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case it'd be better to create subcategories rather than simply delete items that belong in the category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that everything based in a city, belongs in the category for that city. I've previously pruned categories for several other cities with no complaints. OccamzRazor (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What is your basis for removing colleges and radio stations? Those are very local institutions. I could see removing organizations or people that have little connection to their community, but educational institutions and local media don't fit that description. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see your reasoning in removing Category:El Dorado County, California from Church of Our Saviour (Placerville, California). What rule, etc., are you relying on? The church is on the National Register of Historic Places and is certainly an historical landmark in that county. Most NRHP places are categorized ib the county (or city if there is a separate cat for it) in which they are located. If the city or county cat gets too long, then historic places, etc. are put into subcats. clariosophic (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the El Dorado County category, you will see that individual organizations etc. don't belong. A county category is mainly for articles that pertain to the county. The church article is already properly categorized in multiple other categories. There is no "rule" but WP cautions against overcategorization. OccamzRazor (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OR, I've restored many of the locality categories you've recently removed from articles. It is standard for local businesses, schools, colleges, churches, landmarks, and prominent individuals to be categorized by their locality. If you are concerned that there are too many articls in a category the solution is to create subcategories, not to remove the category entirely. I see you had a similar complaint on this page concerning TCI. Including my complaint and Clariosophic's, that means you've now had three objections to your removal of categories. Please take these comments and stop removing appropriate localty categories from articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Place of birth missing

Hi. I noticed that you added Category:Place of birth missing in David S. Loeb. Please note that this category is intended to be in talk pages and not in articles. Please read notes in the category's page. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Bellefonte Furnace

I'm confused by the categorization changes you've made to this article. While the corporate officers were in Philadelphia, all of the actual production facilities were located in Bellefonte. What defines being "based in Philadelphia"? Furthermore, why have you removed the Centre County category? Essentially all of the company's operations occurred in the county, and it's an important part of the county's economic history. Choess (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the category "Economy of Philadelphia" because it is a parent category to "Companies based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" and was therefore, redundant. I deleted the category of Center County because companies don't belong directly in city or county categories - they belong in the "Companies based in..." categories. Categories exist to help people find articles and overcategorization is contrary to this end. Best wishes. OccamzRazor (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:PTSC logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:PTSC logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets

An article that you have been involved in editing, Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets. Thank you. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

E.Digital Corporation

==Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you have repeatedly done to E.Digital Corporation, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Continued deletion of content without stating the rationale will be considered vandalism and reverted. Thank you. Cheyenne99911 (talk) September 16, 2009

The above was written after I placed multiple requests on the user's talk page to cease deleting sourced content from this article. Finally, an administrator stepped in and issued a final warning to Cheyenne99911 about continued vandalism (see Talk:e.Digital Corporation). OccamzRazor (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Cheyenne99911 at WP:AIV for further vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This user refuses to discuss his rationale for repeatedly deleting sourced content and simply deletes the warnings from his user page (demonstrating that he has indeed seen them). OccamzRazor (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

COI edits,

I think everyone agrees on this point from which the other warnings follow, "In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged." Everyone cares about the result and not motives or other arguments directed towards the author. Maybe mentioning this to that contributor didn't help anything but the focus has to be on the result and it does seem the wikipedia policies follow from this. Again, those that I've made were advertised or disclosed. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Saturated Fat

All of your edits seem motivated to make saturated fat seem worse. Most of your comments for your edits are very unhelpful. Why were you "Unable to verify"? I am not trying to sound insulting, but do you know how to look up articles by their pubmed id? I am going to revert almost all of the edits. Please talk about these proposed deletions with me on the Talk page for saturated fat. Gregwebs (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My motivation was to reduce the undue amount of this article's text devoted to a very small minority view, the vast majority view being supported by preponderence of historical studies and long-term research. The deleted citation was simply a very brief summary of the study - I could not find the actual study. However, this study was so obscure that it's really questionable if it even deserves mention in the article. OccamzRazor (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No Original Research

Please, no more original research based on your biases, as per the Mary G. Enig article: "The only reference to back this claim is an article Enig wrote ..." Gregwebs (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not original research. It is a fact that Mary Enig and The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) have claimed that homogenized milk is linked to heart disease. It is also a fact that the only reference to this issue whatsoever on the WAPF website is the article authored by Mary Enig. If you can find another RS reference on the WAPF website or elsewhere, please post it and I will stand corrected. OccamzRazor (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did easily find another reference to it: http://realmilk.com/heart_disease.html. But this is all besides the point. Factual statements need to be backed with references. What is your reference? It is your own original research. Original research is against Wikipedia's guidelines for these very reasons. Furthermore this whole statement is completely irrelevant to simply stating the Enig/WAPF beliefs. It is very clear from your recent edits to this article and to Saturated Fat that you are not capable of changing content with a neutral point of view. If you feel strongly about an article you would serve Wikipedia best by sticking to minor edits (which you seem to do a great job with) and avoid adding/removing research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately the link you give above is the exact opposite of the WAPF claim that homogenized milk is "linked to heart disease." Your link postulates that high fat milk can reduce heart disease. It has no information about "homogenized milk." OccamzRazor (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, your original research has probably shown an inconsistency in their information. However you are still posting your own original research on Wikipedia with the goal of promoting your personal viewpoints instead of a neutral view point. Continuing to argue minor points instead of acknowledging mistakes shows you are not yet up to the task of being a Wikipedia editor. Gregwebs (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

InvestingPennyStock.com Resource Site about Penny Stock

It seems to be a resource site with loads of information on penny stock. It does not promote any companies or what ever. However it seems that they do run google ads, but I have seen few other wiki pages linking to them as authority sites. I think its good if you could give a reconsideration for the best of the readers, or perhaps you can edit the wiki in such a way that it got all the information about penny stock to the extent which this site does

The link is to a commercial website that has further links to stock-picking, blogs and penny stock brokers. Another user has been put on indefinite block for repeatedly inserting it into the article. It might be informative to read-up on WP's list of links to be avoided. OccamzRazor (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

this seems to be not promoting any stock brokers, stock picking sites, blogs or any forums. However as to find more information about the specific areas it mention few sites. which in my opinion is needed for someone who is keen on penny stocks.

Links to DAB pages

Hi; in view of your recent edits [13] and [14], please review WP:DISAMBIG#Links to disambiguation pages:

With very few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article.

The links you propose are not within the exceptions. If you really believe that the person merits a link, please point your link to a relevant article, if one exists. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Mark A. Fischer

I have doubts about this guy's notability, after you and I razed through the article. What do you think? Dr Aaij (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your doubts, especially since the article appears to be an autobiography created by Fischer himself. I would support taking the article to Afd, but have never initiated the process myself, so am not well versed as to how to do so. OccamzRazor (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle makes it very, very easy. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Fischer. Thanks for your note, Dr Aaij (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Democrasoft

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Democrasoft, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.stockhouse.com/Blogs/ViewDetailedPost.aspx?p=102605. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Burst.com a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your note. It used to be easier to find the move tab, but with the new layout I didn't see it today. How can I fix this situation? OccamzRazor (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged both Democrasoft and LRAD Corporation with {{db-histmerge}}, so an admin should be by and cleanup the histories. If there are any other articles which you've moved this way, you can do the same to them. And I had enough trouble finding where things were that I just went back to the old skin. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. How can I also go back to the old skin? It seemed more intiutive. OccamzRazor (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In the upper right-hand corner go to "My preferences" then to the "Appearance" tab, and select "Monobook" instead of "Vector". VernoWhitney (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks once again -- you're a good netizen! OccamzRazor (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could help. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson School of Law

You made several large removal from this article, and claimed that it was for not meeting WP:Notability. However looking at some of what your removed including a professor work being cited by the US Supreme court in a landmark Bill of Rights case, seems that it would meet this requirement, however before I replace your changes, I wanted to see what your thought was before your removed it. Jsgoodrich (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia general notability guideline states that the subject must have "significant coverage" by "reliable sources" "independent of the subject." In researching Kevin J. Green, I found none of these factors. Thank you for asking before reverting. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Former components of the DJIA

Category:Former components of the DJIA, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Supported renaming as proposed on the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. OccamzRazor (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Best Bet Diet

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Best Bet Diet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

November 2. 2011

Hi,

I hope I am doing this right. With regards to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_portable_audio_players&redirect=no I just wondered if with some modification it should be restored. I have posted in the "discussion" section, but have received no reply. Please can we discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.208.153 (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a section in the Portable audio players article for the history of such players. A separate article is not necessary. OccamzRazor (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ASI Technology Corporation

The article ASI Technology Corporation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TJRC (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Susannah Breslin

Hello OccamzRazor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Susannah Breslin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not spam and a quick search suggests the subject is notable. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion on Andrea Lowell

Hi OccamzRazor. I've declined your A7 tag as there is sufficient notability to pass the said criteria. Please use PROD or AfD if you wish to take it further. Thanks. -Cntras (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

If you find a dead link then the correct way to tag it is to add the template {{Dead link}}. That is to say, don't do this, do this. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat 08:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1