Pulvis et umbra sumus.
- ―Horace
Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up! 24.176.20.60 16:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Silence, I was just reading the FAR discussion for Evolution. I'm thinking of working on the article. I'm good at explaining stuff to laypeople and I love the topic. However, from the FAR and from looking at the current mess of an article, it sounds like it's a heck of a stressful place to be. It sounds like pushing a string uphill. Can you tell me, frankly, what to expect if I go in there and start to suggest major changes? Thanks and take care, Kla'quot 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Here, here and here. What have I ever done to you? Orangemarlin 00:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise, the last thing I want to do is fight with you, especially since you're one of the good guys. I thought I had offended you in some way given your rather pointed responses in each of those cases. OK, like Tim Vickers says, these articles do get me down. Orangemarlin 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The point I've been trying to make is that I'm not one of the "good guys". Wikipedia is not some dueling ground between "good guys" and "bad guys"; it is not a crusade. It is an academic, encyclopedic, general-use resource. What matters is the quality of a user's contribution to the encyclopedia, not the personal ideological views of the editor. Any creationist is just as able to be a "good guy" as a non-creationist, as long as he respects Wikipedia's policies. Hell, you can believe in a Flat Earth or that the world is supported on the back of an elephant, for all I care, and still have just as valuable contributions as a brilliant physicist; all that is required is that you not interject your personal views into the article. Non-partisanship in editing is one of the greatest Wikipedian virtues; judging fellow editors based solely on their ideological leanings, rather than on their contributions, runs directly contrary to this principle. I don't mean to be harsh, but I really want to be sure that you recognize this, in order to avoid unnecessary future conflicts. Save the righteous wrath for people who are clearly harming the encyclopedia; don't waste it on people who merely disagree with you. - Silence 05:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Mkdw Internet Explorer Test.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Archive0010. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Mkdw Safari Test.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Archive0010. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Silence, I think we all agreed on the talk page that the Darwin quote you found POV added little to the aticle. I therefore removed both the quote and the tag. I hope this was OK. TimVickers 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Although I respect your concern for accuracy, the placing of "disputed" tags on articles based on minor disagreements about the content, rather than major factual inaccuracies (see Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute) might be seen as a little disruptive. Please consider discussing your points on the talk page and only if your concern cannot be resolved, adding more tags. I am genuinely trying to improve this article, so this rather confrontational style of approaching discussions is not really necessary. TimVickers 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I would not revert war over a minor difference of opinion about classification and layout. Please put your mind at rest! TimVickers 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Evolution. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:KatamariDamacybox.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Katamari. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Silence, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image ( Image:Sandman no.1 (Modern Age).comiccover.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Workshop. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 08:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh, but when you wrote "our primary concern should be to avoid spreading information" I'm sure you didn't mean this! :) TimVickers 18:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, I didn't even notice the first time I read it! TimVickers 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I became a bit grouchy yesterday, that circular tree was about two hours of solid work and I felt quite attached to it. I'm very glad we've found a way that should eventually produce something scientifically-valid, referenced and reasonably simple. TimVickers 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Evolution:
This isn't just about the accusations of logical fallacy. I didn't start out trying to disregard your statements, but you're being extremely long-winded and starting out statements with really offensive things like "your argument is 100% irrelevant". If you're going to treat me (and others) like that, I'm afraid I can't give your contributions the attention you want them to receive. Madeleine 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd be happy if you came and played with the "Simplicity and Complexity" section in my sandbox. All the best. TimVickers 23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope your break goes well, and that it doesn't indicate any problems. Hope to see you again soon! Adam Cuerden talk 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please comment on the discussion about 'use and disuse'. I'm still not convinced of your view - you have read Darwin's main works, right? Please highlight some passages of the book that could support your view. Richard001 07:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Silence I miss your Vulcan logic in the evolution article. I too am retired and getting to the age where I must have sat on some self-destruct button no one bothered to tell me about. I give up on this Wiki and I am exploring digitaluniverse.net and citizendium.org. I find this process infuriating. I must be losing all my patience and the often uncivil attitudes are distracting. Hope you have a great break and enjoy good health. You have gained my respect and admiration despite your big pointy ears-beam me up Scotty. GetAgrippa 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Mkdw Firefox Test2.jpeg. 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 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mkdw Firefox Test2.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. WHOOOOOOOOOOO!
You may still be interested in improving religion in Europe. See you there hopefully. Thanks, Andries 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Since we had traded posts on the Snow Leopard talk page, I wonder if you could take a look at Talk:Snow_Leopard#Recent_Changes. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trimming the plot appropriately at Stardust. I would have done so myself, but I have yet to see the film. A lot of these new film articles tend to have editors that write about films' plots in massive detail, so I thought it was appropriate to discourage mindsets that it's OK to keep a blow-by-blow account of the film. Happy editing! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I came across your name in the edit history for Atheist Jew and saw that you made a significant edit, so I thought you might like to know that Category:Jewish atheists has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_25#Category:Jewish_atheists. The discussion is now in its third day, so don't delay if you would like to participate. Cgingold 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"What is that anti-webcomics agenda he is talking about ?" WAS 4.250 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Yes, absolutely unintended. My thoughts? Just this: BRAVO, and many thanks for your high-quality copyediting at Barack Obama. More please!! -- HailFire ( talk) 00:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Marlith T/ C 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gialogo-1.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 ( talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated True self, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True self and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow! The way you wrote out the scansion for for Catullus one is fantastic! It contains everything! Maybe in the future I will be able to fill in more of the poems in that way- it gives an example. David G Brault ( talk) 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Userloc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Bringing this to your notice in case you have further suggestions about it. Ideally, I'd like to see it gone from the top of the Barack Obama article, reason being that first names are not a typical search term (and it looks silly there sitting at the top of the FA). -- HailFire ( talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Human, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation of Frances the Mute is simply splendid! For that, I award you this:
The Regret Tenenbaum Seal of Approval | |
Holy Crap! You were awarded the The Regret Tenenbaum Seal of Approval for being so awesome!
- Regret Tenenbaum ( talk) |
Hello Silence. Thank you for your comment. If you think that the article Richard Dawkins is good enough for the FA status, please support it. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Silence, I like your user page. I also noticed that you have made over 10,000 edits. [1] Great job. You were not that active on Wikipedia from June 2007 to March 2008. I hope you will spend more time on Wikipedia this month. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Silence, I have finished working through your criticism of the Richard Dawkins article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Dawkins. I appreciate your taking the time to look at it, and you made some very valid points. If you could just let me know which issues you feel I have resolved, and which issues I have not, then that would be great. Regards, AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 19:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say uh..your cool. Or at least that's the impression i get from your page.
I'm not quite sure that agreeing with yourself is allowed... Simply south ( talk) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. Based on how you describe yourself, you seem (at least to me) to be an extremely insightful person with whom I would enjoy conversing (and, possibly, debating). If what your page claims is accurate, I believe we have many beliefs and interests in common. Spero ut porro dicamus. Sapiens23 ( talk) 14:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(Also, I believe you have a typographical error in your last sentence in the third paragraph of your Interests section. Either that, or I use "be" too little in my writing.)
I reverted your addition of Obama to Category:converts to Christianity, based on a source that quotes Obama saying "I have always been a Christian" [2] His father was not religious, but he was raised from the age of 2 by a Christian mother. Wnt ( talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix ( talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As with most articles promoted so long ago, this article does not currently meet the Featured Article criteria. Since you have been a major contributor to the article, I would appreciate your help to bring this article up to the current standards. Please don't take this as an insult to the article, as it is well-written and there shouldn't be a lot of work necessary.
I have listed my concerns on the article's talk page. I would like to get this up to the current standards without going through a Featured Article review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm in a long inactive phase of Wikipedia, as I'm on dialup and pretty resourceless and timeless for the time being. I'm a third generation atheist and non-conformist and came upon your clear and insightful posts while searching for human evolution (in the larger sense) info between 10000 BC and the Egyptians. I am extremely surprised to find this period exactly empty on the Human page, and instead had to wade through an onslaught of "people" and civilisation paragraphs that I really feel do not belong there. And although I was dissatisfied with approximately half the article, one point that really boggled my mind is reference 33 used to state "normal" human weight, from an article discussing "normal" BMI. Most university level physiologists (as opposed to college level dieticians) know how innacurate and innapropriate BMI is to assess human health. By those standards, some pop culture examples such as are Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Scharzenegger are both overweight, as would be most hard working women, such as firefighters I don't even want to go near editing on that page as the anthropocentrics and "all views are equal" types are roaming around it like sharks around drowning men. I thought maybe since you already have experience on that page, you may have more success than I on removing such innaccuracies. Either way, keep up the nice work. Cheers-- Tallard ( talk) 01:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Judging from the latest comment on the get-the-pictcha-question ( Human article), it seems you're very much "liked" by certain people and this discussion will drag on for... "a little longer." Just telling you you've convinced me, but as a non-Biologist, I have nothing more to contribute -- and after my experience with the other "rants" I had to read through (white people, black people, uyghur,...) I don't think I can take this stuff one more time or else I could easily "lose it." Hold your ground, though. :) Seb az86556 ( talk) 10:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been reading your user page and the comments under the 'WTF?' section about Evolution. You need to lighten up, get a hobby and stop taking Wikipedia so damn seriously. You're taking its rules to the extreme now; its a website, stop being so addicted to it and stating rules and.. ugh. Just have a bit of humour in your life. You want to delete all the humurous pages from Wikipedia? You sad, sad man. Your taking Wikipedia like a law you have to follow; please, find something else to do, because I feel Wikipedia has taken over your life; and not for the better either ;) -- Flash flash ; 07:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering what you propose regarding this page. ( talk) 10:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you correct any mistakes plz? Thanks ;) Timpul my talk 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Silence, I see you've changed the bot's instructions from 5d to 10d. Premature archiving was something I was worried about, and I actually meant to do minor edits or something to avert it but never got around to it. I did check the MiszaBot help page and was unable to find any way to tag a specific section for special treatment, which seems absurd. (Either that should be possible or the bot should automatically skip sections with RFC templates.) Anyhow, I really want the contents of Archive 29 back until the RFC closes but am unsure about the best method. My inclination is to paste it back in at the top of Talk:Human and ask you (being of the mop-wielding caste) to speedy-delete Archive 29, but I don't want to screw up future archiving or leave a redundant or blank page. (Still chewing over this, btw, and don't mind telling you I am seriously conflicted over it. You haven't convinced me but you have chiseled away at my position to the point where I'm having to reevaluate its bases.) Rivertorch ( talk) 08:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Silence, you are nothing more than a left-wing sycophant. DavidSteinle ( talk) 12:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful work on the color-coded table of definitions for humanism (talk page)! It really should help the discussion, but I'm afraid that there are some who are at their core POV. No amount of rational argumentation will change them. Thank you so much for your interventions. Wilson Delgado ( talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
And again:
Please help. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mole#Non-moles and tell Richard what you told me. The mole article people don't want it to have the job of disambiguation of the non-moles from the moles, and the DAB people don't want that information in the DAB page. Chrisrus ( talk) 13:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Pulvis et umbra sumus.
- ―Horace
Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up! 24.176.20.60 16:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Silence, I was just reading the FAR discussion for Evolution. I'm thinking of working on the article. I'm good at explaining stuff to laypeople and I love the topic. However, from the FAR and from looking at the current mess of an article, it sounds like it's a heck of a stressful place to be. It sounds like pushing a string uphill. Can you tell me, frankly, what to expect if I go in there and start to suggest major changes? Thanks and take care, Kla'quot 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Here, here and here. What have I ever done to you? Orangemarlin 00:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise, the last thing I want to do is fight with you, especially since you're one of the good guys. I thought I had offended you in some way given your rather pointed responses in each of those cases. OK, like Tim Vickers says, these articles do get me down. Orangemarlin 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The point I've been trying to make is that I'm not one of the "good guys". Wikipedia is not some dueling ground between "good guys" and "bad guys"; it is not a crusade. It is an academic, encyclopedic, general-use resource. What matters is the quality of a user's contribution to the encyclopedia, not the personal ideological views of the editor. Any creationist is just as able to be a "good guy" as a non-creationist, as long as he respects Wikipedia's policies. Hell, you can believe in a Flat Earth or that the world is supported on the back of an elephant, for all I care, and still have just as valuable contributions as a brilliant physicist; all that is required is that you not interject your personal views into the article. Non-partisanship in editing is one of the greatest Wikipedian virtues; judging fellow editors based solely on their ideological leanings, rather than on their contributions, runs directly contrary to this principle. I don't mean to be harsh, but I really want to be sure that you recognize this, in order to avoid unnecessary future conflicts. Save the righteous wrath for people who are clearly harming the encyclopedia; don't waste it on people who merely disagree with you. - Silence 05:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Mkdw Internet Explorer Test.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Archive0010. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Mkdw Safari Test.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Archive0010. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Silence, I think we all agreed on the talk page that the Darwin quote you found POV added little to the aticle. I therefore removed both the quote and the tag. I hope this was OK. TimVickers 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Although I respect your concern for accuracy, the placing of "disputed" tags on articles based on minor disagreements about the content, rather than major factual inaccuracies (see Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute) might be seen as a little disruptive. Please consider discussing your points on the talk page and only if your concern cannot be resolved, adding more tags. I am genuinely trying to improve this article, so this rather confrontational style of approaching discussions is not really necessary. TimVickers 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I would not revert war over a minor difference of opinion about classification and layout. Please put your mind at rest! TimVickers 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Evolution. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:KatamariDamacybox.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Katamari. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Silence, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image ( Image:Sandman no.1 (Modern Age).comiccover.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Silence/Workshop. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 08:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh, but when you wrote "our primary concern should be to avoid spreading information" I'm sure you didn't mean this! :) TimVickers 18:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, I didn't even notice the first time I read it! TimVickers 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I became a bit grouchy yesterday, that circular tree was about two hours of solid work and I felt quite attached to it. I'm very glad we've found a way that should eventually produce something scientifically-valid, referenced and reasonably simple. TimVickers 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Evolution:
This isn't just about the accusations of logical fallacy. I didn't start out trying to disregard your statements, but you're being extremely long-winded and starting out statements with really offensive things like "your argument is 100% irrelevant". If you're going to treat me (and others) like that, I'm afraid I can't give your contributions the attention you want them to receive. Madeleine 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd be happy if you came and played with the "Simplicity and Complexity" section in my sandbox. All the best. TimVickers 23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope your break goes well, and that it doesn't indicate any problems. Hope to see you again soon! Adam Cuerden talk 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please comment on the discussion about 'use and disuse'. I'm still not convinced of your view - you have read Darwin's main works, right? Please highlight some passages of the book that could support your view. Richard001 07:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Silence I miss your Vulcan logic in the evolution article. I too am retired and getting to the age where I must have sat on some self-destruct button no one bothered to tell me about. I give up on this Wiki and I am exploring digitaluniverse.net and citizendium.org. I find this process infuriating. I must be losing all my patience and the often uncivil attitudes are distracting. Hope you have a great break and enjoy good health. You have gained my respect and admiration despite your big pointy ears-beam me up Scotty. GetAgrippa 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Mkdw Firefox Test2.jpeg. 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 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mkdw Firefox Test2.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. WHOOOOOOOOOOO!
You may still be interested in improving religion in Europe. See you there hopefully. Thanks, Andries 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Since we had traded posts on the Snow Leopard talk page, I wonder if you could take a look at Talk:Snow_Leopard#Recent_Changes. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trimming the plot appropriately at Stardust. I would have done so myself, but I have yet to see the film. A lot of these new film articles tend to have editors that write about films' plots in massive detail, so I thought it was appropriate to discourage mindsets that it's OK to keep a blow-by-blow account of the film. Happy editing! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I came across your name in the edit history for Atheist Jew and saw that you made a significant edit, so I thought you might like to know that Category:Jewish atheists has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_25#Category:Jewish_atheists. The discussion is now in its third day, so don't delay if you would like to participate. Cgingold 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"What is that anti-webcomics agenda he is talking about ?" WAS 4.250 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Yes, absolutely unintended. My thoughts? Just this: BRAVO, and many thanks for your high-quality copyediting at Barack Obama. More please!! -- HailFire ( talk) 00:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Marlith T/ C 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gialogo-1.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 ( talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated True self, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True self and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow! The way you wrote out the scansion for for Catullus one is fantastic! It contains everything! Maybe in the future I will be able to fill in more of the poems in that way- it gives an example. David G Brault ( talk) 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Userloc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Bringing this to your notice in case you have further suggestions about it. Ideally, I'd like to see it gone from the top of the Barack Obama article, reason being that first names are not a typical search term (and it looks silly there sitting at the top of the FA). -- HailFire ( talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Human, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation of Frances the Mute is simply splendid! For that, I award you this:
The Regret Tenenbaum Seal of Approval | |
Holy Crap! You were awarded the The Regret Tenenbaum Seal of Approval for being so awesome!
- Regret Tenenbaum ( talk) |
Hello Silence. Thank you for your comment. If you think that the article Richard Dawkins is good enough for the FA status, please support it. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Silence, I like your user page. I also noticed that you have made over 10,000 edits. [1] Great job. You were not that active on Wikipedia from June 2007 to March 2008. I hope you will spend more time on Wikipedia this month. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Silence, I have finished working through your criticism of the Richard Dawkins article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Dawkins. I appreciate your taking the time to look at it, and you made some very valid points. If you could just let me know which issues you feel I have resolved, and which issues I have not, then that would be great. Regards, AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 19:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say uh..your cool. Or at least that's the impression i get from your page.
I'm not quite sure that agreeing with yourself is allowed... Simply south ( talk) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Silence. Based on how you describe yourself, you seem (at least to me) to be an extremely insightful person with whom I would enjoy conversing (and, possibly, debating). If what your page claims is accurate, I believe we have many beliefs and interests in common. Spero ut porro dicamus. Sapiens23 ( talk) 14:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(Also, I believe you have a typographical error in your last sentence in the third paragraph of your Interests section. Either that, or I use "be" too little in my writing.)
I reverted your addition of Obama to Category:converts to Christianity, based on a source that quotes Obama saying "I have always been a Christian" [2] His father was not religious, but he was raised from the age of 2 by a Christian mother. Wnt ( talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix ( talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As with most articles promoted so long ago, this article does not currently meet the Featured Article criteria. Since you have been a major contributor to the article, I would appreciate your help to bring this article up to the current standards. Please don't take this as an insult to the article, as it is well-written and there shouldn't be a lot of work necessary.
I have listed my concerns on the article's talk page. I would like to get this up to the current standards without going through a Featured Article review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm in a long inactive phase of Wikipedia, as I'm on dialup and pretty resourceless and timeless for the time being. I'm a third generation atheist and non-conformist and came upon your clear and insightful posts while searching for human evolution (in the larger sense) info between 10000 BC and the Egyptians. I am extremely surprised to find this period exactly empty on the Human page, and instead had to wade through an onslaught of "people" and civilisation paragraphs that I really feel do not belong there. And although I was dissatisfied with approximately half the article, one point that really boggled my mind is reference 33 used to state "normal" human weight, from an article discussing "normal" BMI. Most university level physiologists (as opposed to college level dieticians) know how innacurate and innapropriate BMI is to assess human health. By those standards, some pop culture examples such as are Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Scharzenegger are both overweight, as would be most hard working women, such as firefighters I don't even want to go near editing on that page as the anthropocentrics and "all views are equal" types are roaming around it like sharks around drowning men. I thought maybe since you already have experience on that page, you may have more success than I on removing such innaccuracies. Either way, keep up the nice work. Cheers-- Tallard ( talk) 01:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Judging from the latest comment on the get-the-pictcha-question ( Human article), it seems you're very much "liked" by certain people and this discussion will drag on for... "a little longer." Just telling you you've convinced me, but as a non-Biologist, I have nothing more to contribute -- and after my experience with the other "rants" I had to read through (white people, black people, uyghur,...) I don't think I can take this stuff one more time or else I could easily "lose it." Hold your ground, though. :) Seb az86556 ( talk) 10:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been reading your user page and the comments under the 'WTF?' section about Evolution. You need to lighten up, get a hobby and stop taking Wikipedia so damn seriously. You're taking its rules to the extreme now; its a website, stop being so addicted to it and stating rules and.. ugh. Just have a bit of humour in your life. You want to delete all the humurous pages from Wikipedia? You sad, sad man. Your taking Wikipedia like a law you have to follow; please, find something else to do, because I feel Wikipedia has taken over your life; and not for the better either ;) -- Flash flash ; 07:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering what you propose regarding this page. ( talk) 10:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you correct any mistakes plz? Thanks ;) Timpul my talk 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Silence, I see you've changed the bot's instructions from 5d to 10d. Premature archiving was something I was worried about, and I actually meant to do minor edits or something to avert it but never got around to it. I did check the MiszaBot help page and was unable to find any way to tag a specific section for special treatment, which seems absurd. (Either that should be possible or the bot should automatically skip sections with RFC templates.) Anyhow, I really want the contents of Archive 29 back until the RFC closes but am unsure about the best method. My inclination is to paste it back in at the top of Talk:Human and ask you (being of the mop-wielding caste) to speedy-delete Archive 29, but I don't want to screw up future archiving or leave a redundant or blank page. (Still chewing over this, btw, and don't mind telling you I am seriously conflicted over it. You haven't convinced me but you have chiseled away at my position to the point where I'm having to reevaluate its bases.) Rivertorch ( talk) 08:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Silence, you are nothing more than a left-wing sycophant. DavidSteinle ( talk) 12:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful work on the color-coded table of definitions for humanism (talk page)! It really should help the discussion, but I'm afraid that there are some who are at their core POV. No amount of rational argumentation will change them. Thank you so much for your interventions. Wilson Delgado ( talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
And again:
Please help. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mole#Non-moles and tell Richard what you told me. The mole article people don't want it to have the job of disambiguation of the non-moles from the moles, and the DAB people don't want that information in the DAB page. Chrisrus ( talk) 13:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)