User talk:Maximilian333

Triple Sugar Iron (TSI) test

The Triple Sugar Iron test is a microbiological test roughly named for its ability to test microorganism's ability to ferment sugars and utilize iron to produce hydrogen sulfide. Is is often used in the selective identification of enteric bacteria.

The TSI slant is a test tube which contains agar, a pH-sensitive dye, high concentrations of lactose and sucrose, and a low concentration of glucose as well as sodium thiosulfate and ferric citrate. All of these ingredients are mixed together and allowed to solidify in the test tube at a slanted angle. The slanted shape of this medium provides an array of surfaces that are either exposed to oxygen-containing air in varying degrees (an aerobic environment) or not exposed to air (an anaerobic environment).

Bacteria which ferment any of the three sugars in the medium will produce byproducts. These byproducts are usually acids, which will change the color of the red pH-sensitive dye to a yellow color. Position of the color change distinguishes acid production from glucose from acid production from lactose or sucrose. Many bacteria that can ferment sugars in the anaerobic butt of the tube are enterebacteria.

Some bacteria are among those that can reduce the thiosulfate anion to sulfide, using the thiosulfate as an electron acceptor to create an iron sulfide precipitate, which appears black. This is the Sulfide.

Under anaerobic conditions (as occur toward the bottom of the tube) some bacteria use H+ as an electron acceptor and reduce it to hydrogen gas. This is not very soluble and may accumulate as bubbles along the inoculation track, between the agar and the glass, or in the fluid which accumulates at the bottom of the slant. Hydrogen production may lift the agar from the butt of the tube or fracture the agar. Carbon dioxide, if produced, may not manifest as bubbles because it is far more soluble in the medium.

Proposed deletion of Sanae Shimomura

The article Sanae Shimomura has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sanae Shimomura

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sanae Shimomura, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanae Shimomura. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --DAJF (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with The two abandoned children of Alberta

Hello. Concerning your contribution, The two abandoned children of Alberta, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rie_Fujii. As a copyright violation, The two abandoned children of Alberta appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. The two abandoned children of Alberta has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:The two abandoned children of Alberta and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:The two abandoned children of Alberta with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:The two abandoned children of Alberta.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

Please don't copy articles to new titles - this breaks the GFDL license requirements. Exxolon (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent articles

The articles you recently created, The three abandoned children of Osaka and The two abandoned children of Alberta, they trouble me--especially the titles. Where do those come from? Did you make those up? Article titles are not to sound like detective novels, as intriguing as that may be. There are other problems. The two Alberta children, that was a straight-up copy of Rie Fujii, and that is where I have redirected the article. That whole "similar cases" bit, that's original research, since the claim that these are similar cases is made by you and not, as far as I can tell, by any reliable source. Finally, why are these individual situations noteworthy enough to become articles? Please read WP:ONEEVENT, and don't be surprised if they are nominated for deletion.

I urge you to consider what Wikipedia is: an encyclopedia, not a forum or a publishing outlet. Having said that, I am a bit puzzled that you didn't create Coin-operated-locker babies, which seems to be a great opportunity for an article of a very encycopledic nature. I have taken the liberty to create it--and now it's all yours. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied my edit summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanae Shimomura: "Maximilian, please keep your comments short and to the point, and place them at the bottom--don't mess up the layout of the page. thank you." Drmies (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies. I'm obviously quite new at this. Not everyone sharing on Wikipedia is experienced but we're all trying to contribute and organize knowledge for the rest of the world, so I appreciate your input and patience. It's hard to piece together, source, and reconcile several articles from foreign sources in a very short amount of time. My approach is to start an article and let it evolve with help from others. So I think you can appreciate the disappointment in having your work dismissed before anyone can see it come into focus. I believe that there is a meaningful focus here. The article titles you mentioned are direct translations from Japanese news, they do speak in terms that sound odd, as you said it does sound like detective novels but that's just how the words are arranged. "the four abandoned children of Sugamo" was written by someone else a long time ago and I felt that the other two could be named the same way. It is preferable to defining individual people as pariahs by delving into a single event in their lives possibly due to mental illness or other factors- these people aren't quite Charles Mansons. I've been trying to explore and to some extent unify these incidents into something of a taxonomy so that they could be referenced to the place where they occured. The cases do share so much in common which can be seen if one takes time to skim over the events in each case- I'm not overtly suggesting that these are quite copycat crimes (and I don't think they are). It's rather intriguing when you wonder what I think it's fair to say that if one is watching this all unfold in the Japanese media and relating it to society and past cases, then it is of substantial importance and is indeed noteworthy and something people would reference. First, I wrote the Osaka case up under the name of the accused mother, which was nominated for deletion immediately citing my use of a person's bio as the reason- so I took the queue and recreated the article with a focus on the event itself. When I looked at the Alberta case, I felt that the same should be done to unify the approach. Maximilian333 (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that stating that they are similar cannot be done without a reliable source stating that they are similar--that is one of the key differences between, for instance, academic and encyclopedic writing. If you cannot provide that kind of evidence for the claim, then you can't make the claim, and the best you can do is suggest--which is why I changed that one set into a 'See also' section. As for the title, one of those articles already existed (you moved it by leaving of "Affair of", if I remember correctly) so there is some precedent, but it does beg the question whether these "affairs" are encyclopedic topics in their own right or news events (in which case they could be subsumed under a more general term, if that general term has encyclopedic value). In general, though, let me urge you to not move too much toward essay writing, and to stick to the facts as your sources present them. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All good points. I understand that this article needs some sources linking the event to some policy shift or public movement, etc. The operant rationale for the time being is that if other cases almost identical to this one were already on Wikipedia, then this one should be as well. Thanks for giving me some time to work on this- I only get time to work on this here and there, but in time I always follow through on my articles. Maximilian333 (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Drmies I found an article in the NYT and also LA Times, one of these cites the similarity in the cases. but the article is generally a cinema review. I posted it at the article for Nobody Knows and will continue my research for sources. Maximilian333 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Maximilian333. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]