User talk:Kkmurray/Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Industrial_&_Engineering_Chemistry_Research_cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Industrial_&_Engineering_Chemistry_Research_cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 03:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Added Non-free media rationale info and removed flag --Kkmurray 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

List of chemical compounds with unusual names

I have removed the links to Fictional chemical substance, List of fictional toxins, List of fictional medicines and drugs and Inherently funny word as I'm not sure they add anything to the article, let alone the AfD debate. :) The strength of the article is that all the chemical compounds listed are real and the names are unusual rather than inherently funny (or rude). The pictures certainly help. Dbromage [Talk] 05:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right. It doesn't have associated context in the article, but I think that it could and should be developed that way. Maybe after the AfD dust settles. --Kkmurray 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Analytical Abstracts cover.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Analytical Abstracts cover.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Added rationale to image page. --Kkmurray 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Analyst cover.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Analyst cover.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Added rationale to image page. --Kkmurray 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Annual_Reports_Section_A_cover.gif

I have tagged Image:Annual_Reports_Section_A_cover.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 01:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Non-free use rationale added --Kkmurray 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Angewandte_Chemie_journal_cover.gif

I have tagged Image:Angewandte_Chemie_journal_cover.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 01:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale added --Kkmurray 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Labchip cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Labchip cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale added --Kkmurray 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry cover.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry cover.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale added --Kkmurray 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Inorganic chemistry cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Inorganic chemistry cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale added as filled-out template. --Kkmurray 13:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Policing External Links

When enforcing Wikipedia's external link policies, I recommend that you look at the links before you remove them. Particularly, in the Laser Doppler Velocimetry article you removed a link to efunda, which shows a diagram of an interferometric LDV. I have expanded the article since it's become clear there are two different sensors with the same name. In the water tunnel (hydrodynamic) article you removed the link to ELD, Inc. which has nice pictures of what tunnels actually look like, as opposed to a picture of a giant building with a pipe sticking out of it. Moreover, they also sell wind tunnels, and the the difference between the two is important.

Just because the link is commercial does not mean it is not informative. I simply ask that you enforce the policy with the right spirit. I have made the links more specific in light of your protest.

Pelesl 16:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have spent more time on that. And thanks for making the external links and expanding the article. --Kkmurray 12:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm new at contributing, but I definitely want to ramp up it since articles I look for end up being snippets or non-existent. However I'm having a hard time learning the basic syntax; I end up having to go to an article that has something I want to do, look at the source, and copy it. Specifically I could not find concise information on how to properly cite papers in a Wikipedia article. Is there a compact starter's guide to syntax somewhere that I couldn't find? Wikipedia:Cheatsheet seems to have only the bare essentials. Perhaps we should add on to it? Pelesl 15:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is WP:CITE of course. I found two template filling pages that are very useful: Wikipedia template filling and Reference generator. Use those for in-text cites with {{Reflist}} in the references section. The first tool generates a full reference from a Pubmed ID, the second uses BibTex or manual entry. --Kkmurray 15:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

USS Iosco

Hello. The page you created here appears to be a direct copy of this article. This constitutes plagiarism, whether the information is public domain or not. Sources provide our information, not our sentences. Please do not create articles that are direct copies of a source. If you have sources for an article, but not the time to create it yourself, it's better to go to the relevant Wikiproject and request someone there create the article from your sources. Regards, Parsecboy 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The text is from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Note the {{DANFS}} template under external links and the two links to the DANFS site. Were these links missing, that might be considered plagiarism, but using the DANFS entry on the USS Iosco as the starting point for an article is no more plagiarism than this. Feel free to pitch in and help improve the page and thanks for voicing your concern. --Kkmurray 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I am well aware where the text came from. There is no problem with using public domain sources for an article. However, like I said above, we don't just copy-paste blocks of text from a source into articles, public domain or not. Articles should always be in our own words, unless we're providing a direct quote. Regards, Parsecboy 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the policy to which you refer. The page WP:PD says "For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for whatever purpose" which presumably includes verbatim cut and paste (with proper attribution of course). The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships page states "Wikipedia often use the DANFS entry as a starting point for ship articles" which presumably means starting with the verbatim text and improving from there (Wikify, expand, add photos, etc.). This seems to be the path of many fine DANFS-based ship articles such as this one. I agree that a verbatim copy will be no better than a stub, but I would rather see that (properly attributed) stub there ready to be improved than nothing at all. Anyway, thanks for all the great edits on the USS Iosco article. --Kkmurray 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a specific policy that explicitly prohibits copying text from a public domain source. The closest I've been able to find is Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Plagiarism_that_does_not_infringe_copyright, but it doesn't say one way or the other whether direct copying of PD text is suitable or not; just that it must be cited. I've always been of the mind to avoid copy-pasting with anything unless it was a direct quote. Anyways, the article in question has been substantially enlarged and reworked, so I guess it really isn't an issue anymore. Regards, Parsecboy 00:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Proteomics cover.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Proteomics cover.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, BcB. Added Non-free / fair use media rationale. --Kkmurray 23:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Achem cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Achem cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Added non-free use rationale. --Kkmurray 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Please do not include fake or inaccurate information on the article of Toreno. The Leonese language has been never spoken nor recognized in the region or El Bierzo or elsewhere in the world. Thank you, 142.59.138.7

That's great, but if you are going to do a global revert, you should note that in the edit summary and the talk page for the article. If you do that, it looks a lot less like POV pushing and helps to avoid edit warring. --Kkmurray 17:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Trek73 article, and related items

Hi Kkmurray. Thanks for your work at Trek73. I created the category for Trek ship simutlators, and am always glad to see some new entries which belong there. Just want to let you know, i just added a new article, entitled Begin 2 (game). please feel free to go there if you have a chance, and to add anything which you may wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Langmuir cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Langmuir cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Added detailed rationale. Flag removed. --Kkmurray 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:International Journal of Biological Sciences cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:International Journal of Biological Sciences cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OC

Please don't delete the OC pic.

The page needs it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnie2020 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Use Template:Non-free use rationale. That will fix it. --Kkmurray 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

mkay ya. and why are you wasting your time worrying about this? because you have no life? you have no idea what this lake is. its a place where people like YOU dont interfere with life, its a getaway. This picture incorporates the every aspect of the lake and all it has to offer. if you had any life you would know. so stop wasting your time... because no one cares who took the damn picture. THanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunettebarbie (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The bots care. Scroll upward if you don't believe me. --Kkmurray 05:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pony book club

Hi Kkmurray, we are trying to post our own written article about our book club. we have graphics we'd like to use from our company (there are no copyright problems in doing so). Wikipedia seems hard to use and we want to make sure our article gets uploaded okay. Please let us know how we can most simply do this as the wiki instructions are extremely complicated. Later other people may make changes I understand, though I hope they know how to:) Thanks!19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)~

WP:WELCOME is a good place to start. Then practice on WP:SANDBOX. --Kkmurray 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

didn't know

Newbie to this, but it makes sense. Should have read the fine print.  :)

Speedy delete l1

Hi, I think you did a mistake on Image:Lunchboxboys2.jpg. Do you want to say that this image is a copyvio or other problem? Cheers. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Image:Lunchboxboys2.jpg the same as Image:Lunchboxboys.jpg except for the scale? If so, the first (smaller) image can be removed by CSD I1.--Kkmurray (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

used 4th album

who put this on here to delete it? its the bands next album, why wouldnt it be included on their page??? No stopping 123 (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think that it is notable, put a {{hangon}} template up. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Differential scanning calorimetry

There seems to be something broken in your template box but I cannot find what. 75.178.177.135 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a problem with Template:Infobox colors . --Kkmurray (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An Introduction to Chemometrics

On August 18, you removed the link to Introduction to Chemometrics from the Chemometrics article as linkspam. While it might technically be linkspam, since it was posted by the author, me, it is also a widely-cited tutorial link, including some literature citations. I adapted it from a presentation that was created for and delivered at an American Chemical Society meeting in 1985. Could I get you to reconsider the delisting? The Wikipedia:Spam content guideline specifically allows exceptions. If your objection is that I posted it, someone else could restore it - you, for instance? :-)

The link you added is useful for someone with some chemometrics background, but I don't think it's useful to a true novice. I really think that adding the link back in adds value to someone looking for chemometrics info.

Thanks for your consideration! Catbar (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-added your link and cut another spam link that found its way in (the Thermo link was there before). I also flagged the article for references. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Catbar (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

list of materials analysis methods

Thanks for your clean up actions. I have been working hard on that page because I think it is quite unique in science. I do not know of any place you can go as a physical scientist and get an overview of all the techniques we have developed over the years. I think it could become a very useful resource for us science-folk. I would value your input on how to structure it best. The problem is that some techniques have one clear acronym to go by but many do not. They may have more than one, none at all or they have developed offshoots like IR -> FTIR -> ATR-FTIR or so. It would be useful if the family relationship could somehow be indicated or so. Any ideas? Jcwf (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How about another section with the methods ordered by category? Alternately, the list could be made into a big table with a column for technique "family". Tables are harder to edit, but the columns could be useful for cross referencing (e.g. List of Futurama episodes, etc.). --Kkmurray (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomson (the unit)

I noticed some potential problems with the article on the thomson (Th). Rather than edit this item directly I thought I would put it up for discussion first. The article refers to Sparkman's book and refers to confusion of terminology that might result from the use of Th as a unit. Specifically, Sparkman cites "the Thomson number in fluid dynamics, Thomson scattering, and the Thomson coefficient (the latter named after Lord Kelvin)."

I have consulted with two professors of mechanical engineering who specialize in fluid dynamics, and neither of them had heard of a "Thomson number" in fluid dynamics. In addition in searches on the internet I have not been able to find discussions of a Thomson number being used in fluid dynamics. Therefore, I think that Sparkman has probably made an error on this particular point and I therefore suggest deleting the following from the article: "the Thomson number in fluid dynamics, ".

Concerning possible confusion with other terminology mentioned, "Thomson scattering" and "Thomson coefficient", I note that it is not unusual in scientific nomenclature to use similar or related nomenclature to refer variously to effects, units, conversion factors, etc. which are not necessarily all related to each other. For example, we have the Farraday effect, which relates to a magneto-optical effect, the Faraday law, which can refer either of two unrelated effects (magnetic induction or to a law of electrochemistry,) the Faraday paradox, which relates to electricity and magnetism, a Faraday cage, which is a device, the Faraday constant, which is a conversion factor relating moles to charge, the Faraday unit, which is a unit of charge (related to Faraday's constant, but not dimensionally the same as Faraday's constant), and perhaps a few other items.

Taking the specific example of terminology containing "Thomson", we have the Thomson effect, which appears in thermoelectricity and non-equilibrium thermodynamics, the Thomson coefficient, which is closely related to the Thomson effect, the Joule-Thomson effect, which is a thermal effect arising in the expansion of gases, Thomson scattering, and so forth.

One of the scientists named Thomson was also known as Kelvin, and here we have the Kelvin relations (from the theory of thermoelectricity), Kelvin (unit of temperature), Kelvin equation (relating to the vapor pressure of a liquid with a curved surface), Kelvin functions (related to Bessel functions), Kelvin wave, and several other items.

The term "Curie" also appears in several contexts, e.g. Curie's law, Curie point, Curie (the unit), Curie constant, and Curie (crater).

There are also multiple uses related to the term "Einstein", though surprisingly few as it turns out.

Considering the fact that scientists are already used to dealing with similar-sounding nomenclature used to identify different things I suggest that Sparkman's argument related to nomenclature confusion is not definitive, and probably should not be given much weight.

The inclusion of Sparkman's agument on nomenclature confusion, though presented in the Wikipedia as a simple factual statement (i.e. a statement of what is in a book), is actually a defacto statement of advocacy, and as such it might be outside the scope of Wikipedia's mission. This would ague in favor of removal of the reference to the opinions expressed in Sparkman's book.

On the other hand, there is no denying that there is controversy over the use of the thomson unit, and it would therefore be hard to include a discussion in Wikipedia of the unit without at least some discussion of the disagreements. In light of this it might be OK to leave Sparkman's opinion in the article. However, if Sparkman's opinion is to be included in the article I think his comments should be balanced by some kind of statement that the scientific community is already used to dealing with similar-sounding nomenclature that deal with different concepts. In the case of the thomson, none of the items to which Sparkman refer are normally considered part of mass spectrometry or related fields. In addition, none of the items identify a unit of measurement. Consequently, using the thomson unit in the field of mass spectrometry should cause no confusion. -Mass-man (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My goal when I made my edits to Thomson (unit) was to get as much of both sides of the argument out there as possible and keep a neutral point of view. I would rather see more discussion of the pro and con arguments as opposed to cutting them. As you note, there is a controversy regarding the proposed unit that is notable. I suggest expanding the article to include a more explicit and balanced pro and con discussion along the lines you outline above. --Kkmurray (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. -Mass-man (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rcm_cover.gif

I have tagged Image:Rcm_cover.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added detailed rationale. Flag removed. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Krewe_Orion_2005.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Krewe_Orion_2005.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete away (see note on IMFD page). --Kkmurray (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neuroepidemiology

The article has been significantly expanded since you tagged it, and thus no longer meets the criterion. If you still believe it should be deleted, it should go to AfD.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 23:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The creator of the page seems to be improving the page as we type. Great. It looks like a worthwhile topic. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing my pages...

They do have content they tell people these are primary's in Trafford! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capslock99 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't removed any pages (I am not an admin). You have created dozens of pages with no content or context. Please slow down. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter how fast I make pages... is there a speed Limit??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capslock99 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and get some advice there. Good luck with your project. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Eagerness for Speed-delete

Just wondering why you don't try and help users with the content they have uploaded instead of doing a speedy delete... I've checked you profile and see that's all you do. Where as other users actual help users who are trying to contribute to wiki.

Yes, we may not be doing it the correct way at least we are trying... your actions are a great way to get people to stop contributing.

May be a little more haste on "Speedy Delete", will stop all the waste of users just uploading the same content over and over... if they can see what they have done wrong then this will correct it.

CP99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capslock99 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some new page patrolling lately; if you find any instances where I have failed to follow the guidelines, let me know. I try to assume good faith (as should all of us) and help out where I can. I think that an inspection of my contributions shows this. Again, good luck on your project. Don't panic at notices and warnings, just work to make the suggested improvements (and don't forget to sign your comments). --Kkmurray (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock case

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kehrli. Read and heed the closing statement suggestions. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. WIth the sock issue sorted out, I think that we can work this out with the help of WikiProject Physics. --Kkmurray (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)