User talk:Ragesoss/Archive5

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 16!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 16 is at [1]

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

Lots of stuff, too much to list here.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! Feel free to post to the mailing lists too.... apparently not many people know about us.... yet

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

getting a few good wikipedia quotes in the paper

Thank you! I thought the article was remarkably good and well-balanced, from what I could read of the horrible online version. Jessamyn (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki titles

Hi Sage,

thank you for the modifications to my user page. In English it is normal practice to capitalise the main words of titles why doesn't Wiki follow this convention? No complaints just curious! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thony C. (talk • contribs) 10:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the Icelander article. Could you possibly suggest some ideas from the History of Science portal for a Spotlight collaboration? Thanks. Danny 03:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icelanders

Thankyou for doing the genetics section, I was having a really hard time figuring out those sources. Feel free to join the spotlight effort! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ragesoss, this has been a hugely contentious process over the last week. Please look at where the template started and how it now at least alludes to the possibility of single sourcing. Jeff has opposed the template and its inclusion at all guideline pages. I'm trying to find a middle ground here on the wording. If you doubt my position, please read back through my position at WP:N from late February on, where I have supported the single source, but in order to have progress there should be some willingness to compromise. --Kevin Murray 05:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hi! Suggest that you answer the 3 standard questions that are asked of every RfA candidate. If you don't, people will be likely to oppose your candidacy. You might want to remove your RfA from the list and put it back on when the questions are answered. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply inform them when you've answered the questions. You already covered the first one in your nominating statement, but the third one is especially important in evaluating your work. You did mention mistakes, but if you make people thrawl your contributions to find them, they're more likely to oppose. Please give some examples yourself to make it easier for others to find out where to start looking. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He shouldn't have to do that. If people want to comment, they can do the research themselves. Majorly (hot!) 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who tried something very similar a couple of times, I wish you every success, and will be watching carefully. -- Hex [^t/_c] 00:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting into the conversation but I couldnt resist. :) Does Mgm mean Ragesoss should answer Q. 3 and everyone should go by the incidents he mentions or the promises he makes in the answer? Trusting what Ragesoss says in the answer is equivalent to trusting him without the answer, no? I think people should do their own research before they decide. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of biology

I'm in the process of putting that GA on hold, I'll be leaving notes on the talk page shortly. Quadzilla99 08:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I have for this other than Mayr's book is in another country right now, so I doubt I can be much use right now. Maybe later. But thanks for letting me know. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I took another look at the History of biology article and made a few additions of things that I thought should be mentioned in the 20th century, in particular Hamilton's rule and kin selection. Other than that it looked pretty good to me. Rusty Cashman 11:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man you are fast. You correct my mistakes in spelling and punctuation before I even finish making them :) Rusty Cashman 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. Two things I would do to make this even better. Firstly, wherever a significant publication is mentioned, the text should reference this publication, ie I added Thomas Hunt Morgans' book on chromosomal inheritance but the key ground-breaking papers and books should be referenced. Secondly, watch for over-long and complex sentences, particularly compound adjectives. Hope this helps, TimVickers 15:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've tried to condense the lead as much as I can. TimVickers 16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beat you to the punch! Have a look. Quadzilla99 18:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally,

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For all you hard work in taking it upon yourself to make History of biology a good article, I Quadzilla99 award you this barnstar. Looking at at the edit history and where it was before you started in on it, you definitelly deserve this award. On to FA! Quadzilla99 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made an exceptional job! I've listed my suggestions. NCurse _work 18:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this image and thought of your article, Image:Metabolic pathways small.png. I though it might be useful in the 20th century section, besides it is bright and pretty and adds a dash of color. Don't feel obligated to use it, just letting you know it is out there. Good luck with the FAC!!--DO11.10 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from your personal response at my talk page with regards my point on Q3 of your RfA

I appreciate your personal response on my talk page - and I hope that you will understand (at least I sincerely hope that you do) that I have nothing against you personally whatsoever. I like your edits, your edit count, your user page all of those things that you proudly display (and have the right to) - more to the point you are actually an editor with great mainspace material (which in my opinion is the most important task on Wiki). I don't even mind that you are not pointing us all to a conflict that you have had in the past for 2 reasons. Firstly because you may never have had one and secondly because YES I understand your concern that some will use that to create the appropriate dispersion about your character. However question 3 asks you for an answer to one particularly important component that I can't assess which is "How will you (read "intend") deal with conflict in the future? Of course I am not naive and know that you can answer such a question with just the right amount of tact and lip-service - but you seem to be a very trustworthy candidate and so therefore I doubt you would. Again therefore you are asking us to trust you I require the same respect and an answer to (at the very least this part of question 3) showing in part that you can trust us. Indeed this part of the the RfA is not IMHO deficient in any way. What do you say to my request?--VS ^talk 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Smile) it sure is a long way to say "no"! I wonder if you could also assume good faith that I have used wannabe kate's tool to check your edits. My question was of course about future conflict and I note that you now do answer that question. I am going to accept it as an honest answer one for which I and others can hold you accountable if it becomes necessary. I take the opportunity therefore of highlighting the answer that you do give to my question within the long speech answer you put on my talk page and which IMHO you should not be afraid of displaying. I also take the opportunity of saying that I understand your concerns over good editors perhaps not putting their hand up for adminship because of the process of RfA (although many would say if you can't handle the RfA process how will you handle the sh*te many poor and anon editors will give you once you are an admin and actually can use the mop?). Finally I will change my vote to support because now I have your statement of intention about future conflict and whilst you were reticent to give such an answer, now given I can respect you more than enough as a candidate. Good luck!--VS ^talk 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent history

Man, I'm so glad you said that. Some people really think that an encyclopaedia should be about the paper that came out last week. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the award and thank you for so gracefully accepting my long and nit-picky reviews. Awadewit 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to fly off the handle over at the FAC for history of biology, but I was really ticked off. I even waited an hour to send the reply. Apparently that wasn't long enough. Awadewit 04:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'd like to personally apologize for my initial position on your RFA. I don't usually make light judgements such as that one but, well, nobody's perfect. :-) Regards, Hús ö nd 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from downunder. Take care.--VS ^talk 07:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me as well. I was unable to support because your userpage appears to provide images of just two cats whilst you profess to live with three; in view of the Essjay controversy, we just can't be too careful with unverified representations of fact. Naw, I would have supported but generally avoid piling on and, in any case, didn't want to make my tuxedo cat jealous. Cheers, Joe 08:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. By the time I got your message, your RfA was closed though! Pascal.Tesson 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Congrats! I am glad you weren't buried for not genuflecting. I enjoyed meeting you at the last NYC event and I hope I'll see you at the next one. -- Y not? 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations indeed! Your unorthodox RfA was a bold move on your part but you deserved for it to succeed. Well done :) Mop time! - Alison ☺ 12:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the long-overdue recognition. SteveMcCluskey 13:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats and thanks for your /RfA text. —Alde Baer 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!!! Well done!--U.S.A. cubed 20:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA followup

Thanks for the message on the talk page regarding your nomination. I took the time to read up on the thoughts you wrote up about it. For the record, I overall think you're a great editor and will make a fine sysop. My concern over the nomination was in no way to be read as a reflection on how I feel about your contributions and efforts to the project as a whole.

The fact you took the time to leave a message on my talk page tells me I was probably a little hasty in getting too worried about it. I do also agree with you that RFA could do with some updating - it's become too focused on arbitrary criteria like editcounts and numerical analysis and the like.

Anyway, thanks again for the response, and happy editing! Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message

Thank you for your message on my talk page regarding your RfA.

As I initially noted, "in reviewing [your] contributions history, I found nothing that would make me oppose [your] candidacy under normal circumstances". I understand that your refusal to answer the questsions was motivated by your desire to highlight what you perceive to be unnecessary stresses of RfA, but did and do not think your point was well-delivered. In general, I dislike RfAs that advance a platform, as it distracts from evaluation of the candidate ... which it obviously did in your case.

Also, although I agree that RfA should be less rigorous, I do not believe that is best achieved by reducing (or worse, cutting off) communication between candidates and participants. In your essay, you note that "participants often base their decisions on a candidate's actions during the RfA, rather than on the edit history or knowledge of the candidate's behavior". However, a candidate's actions during the RfA are part of the edit history (showing in particular how the candidate interacts with others) and, for those who've not previously interacted with the candidate, the RfA serves as the first impression of the candidate's behaviour and attitude.

That said, I do not believe you will abuse the tools, delete the main page, or block Jimbo (maybe just a one-second block for fun). ;) In trawling over your edit history, I saw that you are an excellent editor, and the fact that you were endorsed by the likes of Riana, CharlotteWebb, WJBscribe, and others can only create more confidence in your adminworthiness.

Anyway, I congratulate you on the success of your candidacy and wish you the best of luck. Thanks again for your message, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:My RfA

Congratulations on your successful RfA! But thank you for a response as to why you did not answer the questions. I agree with you though that editors base too much of their decision on the RfA questions. While I like to see them answered as it gives me some insight into the people themselves I think the best way to see if a person is good for the job is to take a look through their contributions. Besides, looking through your edits I did not see anything to be worried about. Did not look like you would abuse the tools. Anyways thanks again, congratulations, and good luck! Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Rageross, Thanks for your note. No worries. Congratualations! Best, --Shirahadasha 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, thank's for the note. Remember the mop has two ends, but most things don't require whacking!

Plame affair/CIA leak scandal

could you please vote again on a preference for the article name on the talk page? your input could very much help to reach a consensus. thanks!!Anthonymendoza 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about admin behavior at large

Ragesoss, I was just wondering, do you think someone should be an administrator if they submit articles to FAC with obviously unreliable sources? I am in the middle of a lengthy FAC (not due to contentiousness but rather due to the many problems with the article) right now that has raised some questions for me. I was surprised that the user submitted the article when it was so obviously poorly sourced in spots (self-published websites was the main problem). The user's page marks him/her as an administrator with 28,000 edits. I was just wondering if you knew if there was some sort of place to report this or if such a thing should be reported. I feel very strongly about the use of reliable sources on wikipedia and I believe administrators should be aware of those policies and rigorously adhere to them; if they themselves do not understand the policies or care very much about them, how can we expect them to apply those policies in decisions that have to be made? See the Samuel Adams FAC. I know nothing about adminship, so any insight you could offer on this topic would be helpful. Thanks. Awadewit 22:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

It's so much fun putting that little star up there on top of the page, savor it. Quadzilla99 05:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Bio-star
		For bringing history of biology to FA level. Now let's give Rusty a hand with Alfred Russel Wallace! Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Dewey Moore Jr.

I'm the nominator, not the creator. If those notifications are automatic you might want to exclude the editor that actually nominated that article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Will remember next time. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA.

Hello Ragesoss, sorry about my initial opposition to your RfA. I must say that I am impressed at how successful the RfA was. It's a shame you're RfA didn't make it to WP:100. However, I guess a support count of 99 is very good. :) Acalamari 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

Hello. This is just a friendly notice that Wikipedia Weekly episode 19 has been released!

In this episode:

New Mission and Vision statements for the WMF
The Chaser springs Jimmy Wales
new uses for categories
vandalism studies
Unreferenced BLPs.

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/05/05/wikipedia-weekly-19/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Alfred Russel Wallace FAC

FYI I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for FA. Your participation in the process would be welcome. Rusty Cashman 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science Newsletter Item

You wrote in the WikiProject:History of Science Newsletter that "Lacatosias worked hard to bring Conatus to Featured Article status". As the person who began the article just a few months ago, and did a great deal of work myself on it (if not most of it), I was offended by this glib statement. I would ask that you either remove the notice from the bulletin (it's not hard science anyway), or include my name there. Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 04:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do recognize that Lacatosias is listed as a participant in this project, and I'm not; but, I still find your wording needlessly exclusive.

Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 13:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science Newsletter

Thank you for the newletters, it is one of the few I read. The latest issue contained an error, I felt, so I made an edit to it. I hope to be able to contribute more to the project. I have found plenty of interesting areas, but I'm doing more reading than editing at this stage. Best regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of message

Left a message for you on your Commons talk page.↔NMajdan•talk 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten permission for photos through a message board as well and I sent them a screenshot of the message and that worked. So thats something else to think about if there are further issues.↔NMajdan•talk 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this? I have placed the OU article up for FA nomination.↔NMajdan•talk 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what happened?↔NMajdan•talk 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 9 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phage group, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Wikipedia

Thanks for the barnstar, Ragesoss. As for projecting the fall-off rate of new articles per day, it might be difficult to do it in a meaningful way, because it's not clear which factors have contributed most to the decline. Is it mainly the deletionists' ongoing cleanup efforts? Or is it also that over a million notable subjects already have articles, which makes it harder to find new subjects to create articles about? The rate does seem to be headed downward, but it could also spike up again, as it did for whatever reason back in February.

It would be interesting to track the number of deleted articles. What is the best way to get that data out of Special:Log/Delete? Someone would need to write a script to separate out the articles from all the other stuff. Is there such a thing already? --Seattle Skier (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 12 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

Why did you do this edit? It really doesn't make sense. Editors are allowed to maintain their own opinions on things and should not be harassed about their opinions. Further, accusations of disruption are not appropriate, especially when the issue has been talked at lenghts in multiple forums. I am left perplexed as to why you left such a random edit, unwarranted and, frankly, rude edit. It is not becoming of an editor on a collaborative project. In utter confusion, Iamunknown 03:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asilomar Page

Thanks for your message. I truly appreciate its tone: I was altogether expecting something on the order of an excoriating missive. As you can undoubtedly see, I'm rather new at editing Wikipages. I was hesitant to actually leave my mark on the Asilomar page, as I'm not entirely versant in all the etiquette and rules of Wikipedia. The History of Science projects looks quite productive.-BasilSeal

You deleted "The Three Robbers" entry. It is a real book. As it is a children's book, I did not realize the importance of the formality necessary to keep an entry valid. I thought there was a link back to Tomi Ungerer's page, so anyone wanting to see the "Real World" value of the book, could find the Author. If more than a link back to the Author is necessary, I will try to update the page to your satisfaction.

Notification

I responded to your comment on my talk page. As an aside, it would have been more useful had you referred to specific edits you disagreed with, instead of merely thwacking me in the face with a guideline reference without referring to any specific edits. I had to research your own edits to find out what edits of mine you disagreed with -- and frankly that's not very helpful on your part. It would be more helpful if you focused on collaborative improvement by discussing the merits of specific changes. Please also note that I have called upon you to revert your reverts of my edits in my comments there. Chromaticity 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lester King

On 18 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jack Lester King, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 00:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reinstating "The Three Robbers". As luck would have it, it will be made into a full length feature film, scheduled for release in July 2007 in Germany: http://www.german-films.de/app/filmarchive/film_view.php?film_id=1596

So I think it satisfies Criteria #3.

My son is the one who originally entered the entry, so perhaps I can encourage him to work with me on improving it.

Thank you for your help.

DYK

On 22 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas H. Jukes , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epigenetics

NBeale has been vehemently arguing that some sort of "philosophical impact" of epigenetics needs to be added to the Epigenetics page (see Talk:Epigenetics). While the topic may be interesting, he's not doing a good job of it (and is, I suspect, using the topic to push an anti-Dawkins POV) and I have my concerns that the subject belongs elsewhere in wikipedia. (As noted on the talk page, these updates to scientific understanding include biological observations that are not epigenetic. Besides, I suspect there's a general wikipedia policy avoiding expanding science topics in this manner -- what's next, a section in Genetics entitled "The social and philosophical impact of genetic theory"?) Since you've done the history of science & history of biology stuff, I thought you might have a better perspective on this "philosophy of science" issue than I. It'd be wonderful if you could lend some insight here (or maybe could find another wikipedian with appropriate expertise). -- Madeleine 15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. You're right, my Genetics hyperbole was ill-formed and some reasonably written material on the topic could indeed belong in Wikipedia, and the Epigenetics situation looks like it's under control. I guess I'm feeling stressed about the general problem -- trying to make sure any content added along these lines is neutral and well-researched. (I had a similar situation with deletion of "Universal Genetic Code".) The science is my field, but what should I do when someone says it's about philosophy? Although I don't think he is any more qualified, NBeale's accusations of me lacking expertise in that field make me wonder how I should generally be handling these things in the future. Any advice? Madeleine 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know whether things "represent an appropriate balance of viewpoints" when the philosophy / social thing isn't my area. IE, if someone defends their content with the claim "this is a significant viewpoint in the philosophy field" and backs that up with some cherry-picked references, it sounds like weasel words to me but I don't know how to call them on it.

Yes, I'll leave that Epigenetics thing alone at this point, no reason to chew over something that stresses me. Thanks for talking to me about it... Madeleine 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews: protest at Navy academy

Someone who was also at the protest commented on your report, please check at Talk:Protesters demonstrate at US Coast Guard Academy. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to The Physical Society of Iran

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to The Physical Society of Iran, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please ensure that before trying to add categories, their titles are correctly spelt and there is a real need for them to exist. Attempting to create a duplicate category serves no purpose. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch via my talk page. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley

I am attempting to write the Joseph Priestley article but because his writings cover such a wide range of disciplines (philosophy, metaphysics, theology, education, grammar, political theory and natural philosophy) I am having a bit of trouble. The weakest sections of the article are currently the "natural philosophy" sections. I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out there. Robert Schofield's biography is conveniently divided up into disciplinary sections, so you would not have to read all two volumes. (I have not yet read all of the articles in the bibliography, so I don't know if they would be helpful or not.) I have asked one other person to help me out, but they insist that they know just as much biology and chemistry as myself (which is next to none, so I don't know if the person is just being modest or what). If you would be willing to assist me on this article, I would greatly appreciate it. I would obviously be willing to help you in return, in any way I can. I am a pretty good reviewer and copy editor, if you need that sort of help anywhere; otherwise, just let me know what to do. I am in no rush regarding this article, by the way. Awadewit ^Talk 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]