69.255.27.249

Presentation

Looking through your presentation. Good stuff. ;) HurricaneFan25 17:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Shake your manly hand. Expecting more screams and hate. Peace, dude! 69.255.27.249 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On the part about why those famous/destructive hurricanes aren't good...there's so much information on them that they can't possibly be made into a good article in a week or less, unlike many other articles in the project. We don't ignore them; it's well, just easier to bring less important ones to better quality. HurricaneFan25 17:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If the goal is number of articles with the GA rating, you have the right strategy. If the goal is to maximize percentage of viewers seeing GA quality (iow the real reader experience) than it is more efficient to go after the notable storms. They might take 5 times (or even 10 times) the work, but they will probably hit 100+ times the eyeballs. Andrew draws 26,000 hits per month. A typical WP:Hurricane GA only pulls in 260 views per month.69.255.27.249 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please log in

This is interesting stuff, but please consider creating an account and log in. Talking with an IP is not very friendly... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm using this login (unblocked a voluntary block) now. Sorry about the IP edits.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, chat to me on IRC. --Sp33dyphil © • © 06:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine ref

Hello. I don't get the point of this edit. It's a fine-working ref, it does what it is intended to stand for. The part with the info we cite (the note 22) actually talks about fluoro pharmaceuticals toxicity. It is not a line taken out of context, it is surrounded by infos on the same topic. I just think it plays no role for a reader what we cite, given the correctness of the info. But if even, don't get why this one's bad. I don't get it; tell me.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That book is mostly advancing an argument against water fluoridation. Yes, that fact in there might be fine, but it is not the right reference for a section on fluorine in pharmaceuticals. Instead we should send the reader to review articles on fluorine in pharma. Consider: if we were writing an article on Christopher Columbus and we wanted to cite a source for his birthdate. We COULD use a book that is advancing a theory that Egyptians discovered America (if it had a tangential mention of Columbus's birthdate). But that would be bad, because it was not what the reader wants for a ref (is looking for a bio on Columbus or an article on his birth)...and also because the rest of the book was somewhat...sketchy. If you really wanted to keep that as a source, the place to put Fluoride Deception would be where we talk about water fluorination being controversial (at least it gives that little bit cranky side of the issue, some link). But not in some unrelated place, just because it had some overview info on fluorine itself.69.255.27.249 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I still think it is better than totally nothing. But your idea is gettable and makes sense. Thanks. Will consider this a self-motivational move and will try to find a better ref.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello, I'm Velella. This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content from Fluorine without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. Unfortunately I have been a little too busy to complete my review of "Fluorine". I shall try to free up some more time this week to do so. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (69.255.27.249) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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 this page. Again, welcome! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

---