Welcome!
Hello, Anthon.Eff/Archive 1, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 00:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get around to it. Margery, Home and Palladino are more interesting to me. It seems like too long ago I read an old book that gave a very detailed explanation of the Davenports' rope tie. They were really something in their time. Don't be in a hurry, and remember stories dealing with the unknown love to grow, and they do. User:Kazuba 1 Mar 2006
Just fooling around found something that may interest you. Do a search for: my magic life david devant, that will take you to the book. In contents pick chapter 18, magic in the 19th century. Fascinating history User:Kazuba 1 Mar 2006
No, no, no, no, no. No writing for now, and this is certainly beyond the secrets of the medium, my favorite stomping grounds. The rope tie used by the Davenport Brothers is fully explained in The Master Magicians by Walter Gibson, Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York 1966. If I have seen it used I certainly did not recognize it at the time. (Which is not surprising.)I am more familiar with some other ties, that some one else reading this doesn't need to know about. Even you. If you do magic you know exactly where I am coming from. I'm gone. User:Kazuba 1 Mar 2006
Obtain a copy of Mediums and the Conjurors edited by James Webb, Ayer co Pub, 1976. It's all in there from the original prime materials. User:Kazuba 19 Mar 2006
Hi Anthon, Many years ago I was fortunate to get an introduction to Eric Dingwall from Milborne Christopher. Dingwall had lived through the grand period of spiritism and has contributed much to its history. To study the paranormal, he wrote me, it was imperative to have a knowledge of conjuring. This can take a life-time and still one is never totally prepared for something novel. Magic, or conjuring, at different levels is always in flux due to new observations, new talents, new methods, new twists. It evolves. The introduction to Mediums of the 19th Century, Vol 1, by Frank Podmore, University books, 1963, formerly Modern Spiitualism, 1902, is written by Ding. This introduction and Podmore's book will give you a small but incomplete contemporary explanation for the seduction of Doyle, Crookes and other men of science. You must try to put yourself in the place of these men in their TIME of the 19th century, who encountered the inexplicable. In many cases these individuals (Doyle) had lost a very close dear loved one (a son) and longed to again hear their reassuring voice from the otherside. I have witnessed this phenomena as it takes place in others myself. There is desperation and relief. Also see the infamous Project Alpha. Don't miss Boy's Life by Robert R. McCammon it is a real treat. You will love it. User:Kazuba 22 Mar 2006
...on Spiritualism. I'm glad that you agree that there is a need for a "Modern Spiritualism Movement" article that is distinct historical overview. The S. article is becoming too big and diverse to be useful for someone researching a movement and era rather than a philosophy or cosmology. It's all too much for me, 'tho -- I'll have to throw in the towel, there simply isn't enough time. -- user:Zosodada
Supposedly William Crookes' brother Philip died in 1867. That is probably the hook. User:Kazuba 31 Mar 2006
Take a look at The Career or Eusapia Palladino, Chapter 1 in Doyle's History of Spiritualism, Vol 2, Then read the entry for Eusapia Palladino in the Wikipedia. This is an extraordinary example of scientitists being absolutely hood-winked by an adept charlatan. Doyle ate it up. User:Kazuba 14 Apr2006
For information only: "systematic name" is generally synonymous with "specific name", just a little more highbrow and less commonly used by other than taxonomists. I don't see any reason to change it back though. -- WormRunner 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
What does "Cultures in the standard cross cultural sample" mean? What new value is added by the creation of this category? Thanks! -- Ling.Nut 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Anthon, no problem! As for the poem, you got it—it's Ladino, which is indeed very close to Spanish. Note the differences however between "ninya" and "niña", "kantando" and "cantado", etc. Cheers, Khoi khoi 00:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Anthon. Regional science is not geographical science. It is very close to economic geography, but it's focus is on region or regional economics. See here http://www.rri.wvu.edu/loveridgeintroregsci.htm and look at the figure Elements of regional science. It draws his knowledge heavily from economics and geography and other sciences but is not considered as part of any of them. I agree that many regional scientists are among geographers but as much if not more of them are economists, planners and others.
In georaphy there's regional geography which is thought in some universities that could be regarded as geographical science though there are many critics stating its non-scientific nature based on descriptive approach - gathering of information about places. It is also considered as a paradigm (approach to study - regionalism) in geographical sciences. But that's another thing. I talk too much :). GeoW 08:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you guys wore me out, so I won't pursue it if you dig your heels in, but my request on the talk page still stands: if you wish to rate the article, then please leave behind your comments, so that your rating is helpful to those of us who actually do work on the article. Thanks. Anthon.Eff 14:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Anthon, I have been learning an interesting lesson about Wikipedia. In the EVP article, I have been banned, warned and all but strung-up for editing the article because I have a "conflict of interest." It seems that any person who might benefit in some way has one. They don't apply the same rule to people who advocate the Skeptical view, even though it is clearly an ideological advocacy. Nevertheless, I think I would just be a source of tension if I began working on the Spiritual pages. Please do contact me at the http://ethericreality.aaevp.com web site if you need backup. I will be happy to do what I can, but meanwhile, you seem to be doing a great job. Tom Butler 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw your template on the history of economic thought, which I thought was very well done, and I thought you may be interested in helping me out with my template of economics as shown below. Remember 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a project for economics. But it is labeled for business and economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics. I put up the template there but have not gotten any comments yet. Remember 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yo, I have altered Template:History of economic thought so that it serves as a navigational aid rather than dead-end. However, it no longer links indirectly to the actual economists as some of your previous versions did. Consequently, I have begun creating individual templates for economists of the various schools based on this version of the template in case you are interested in contributing. To give an indication of what I intend, see Template:Mercantilism. Your co-operation would be much appreciated. Skomorokh incite 02:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I have seen the numnbers given by Ethnologue before, but the problem is they are very outdated, as most of their sources are from 70s and 80s. Normally we should not include estimates from 30 years ago. Since there are no reliable figures, in my view it is better to use more recent estimates like those in the report by the Council of Europe(which I used for some of the diaspora numbers) or CIA World Fact Book. As for assimilation, please see here [1]: The government's main strategy for assimilating the Kurds has been language suppression. Yet, despite official attempts over several decades to spread Turkish among them, most Kurds have retained their native language. I tried to add a 2006 report by European Council, which confirms the same 15-20% ratio for Kurds of Turkey. Heja Helweda 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hypnosadist posted some... unhelpful text to a lot of user talk pages. I reverted it. Normal action. Guy ( Help!) 18:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Just wanted to thank you for your encouraging words on the Reincarnation Research page. With the passing of Ian Stevenson, some interesting material came to hand, and it's been good to use this to bring the page up to standard. Once again, your comments are much appreciated. John Johnfos 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
If your statement on my talk page was a reference to my placing the Spirituality project banner on the articles in the parent Category:Spirituality, which is the stated scope of the project, then I think that your own statement may well be less than well informed. The purpose of my doing so, for what little it might be worth to you, is to find all the articles which have received some form of recognition (GA, FA, DYK, release selection), and inform the various relevant projects of those articles. Certainly, I am in no way asserting that those articles necessarily belong within the scope of a given project, simply that, by the way the article is currently categorized, they are within that project's scope. Factually, I know that several articles which haven't been touched for a long time are by modern standards miscategorized, and I hope to at least draw some attention to these articles, hopefully correcting these miscategorizations, by my actions. If there are objections to stating that a given article falls within the scope of a given project, then I clearly have no objections to having those articles' categorization changed and the banner removed. Also, for what little it's worth, it has become apparent to me that the majority of the "religion" based projects have tagged few if any of the relevant articles (I think Sikhism had all of 19 articles tagged). Also, please note that, as far as possible, when I have changed categories (generally by adding them), it is because there is specific relevant content in the article. For instance, categorizing something as Buddhist if there is a paragraph relating directly to Buddhism in the article. This is done because, unfortunately, very few if any people really are capable of knowing whether statements in a given article are necessarily accurate regarding multiple faiths which might be referenced in that article. The project specific to that faith would be more likely to know that. As stated, of course, if you believe that a given article does not fall within the scope of a given project, you are free to change it. If you do so, however, you might also want to change the categorization, because that is basically the way projects find out what articles are relevant to their projects. John Carter 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick! Thanks for writing. I had just uploaded 4 or 5 photos and put the wrong date (1974) on each of them and was in the process of correcting the captions when you wrote. They actually were all taken taken in 1973. Put it down to "Old Timer's Disease"! I should change the date in the full titles of the photos - not just the captions - but I am not sure how to do it - so have just added a note to each. Anyway, I am glad you enjoyed the photos. I hope to add more when I can find the time - they have got slightly damaged and pretty faded and need a bit of editing before I upload them. All best wishes, John Hill 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:CoraLVHatch.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, got your message. The reason I mentioned the issue of sockpuppetry is because the user put the same edit on my talk page twice through different IPs, which got under my skin. As for me removing the links, I knew they were recent Times articles; unfortunately, that article specifically has been a frequent target of POV and i'm sort of on high alert when it comes to that. In addition, I felt that they would be more appropriate in some sort of "recent events" section as opposed to external links but considering the article's aformentioned history of POV I wasn't having it.
Regardless, if you feel that my reverting was out of line then I will defer; perhaps viewing from the outside looking in gives you a clarity I don't have. I'll leave it off for now, and please don't feel shy if you notice anything else you take issue with. I rarely experience people disagreeing with my edits in a civil manner which is sad, so any future feedback is more than welcome.
MezzoMezzo
04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Anthon, not only do I like the anecdote that you begin your page with (because i think it's great to see another editor who believes in something he/she is doing), I want to ask for your help in getting a couple of pages merged - including one that you started - Schools of economics with Economic schools of thought. I'm doing this more as a wider project of creating the History of economic thought page and eventually (one never knows) making the economics page something useable. Please get back, or if you are happy to, have a go at merging. Wik idea 01:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Athon, obviously, you haven't followed what's been going on. History of economics was merged into the History of economic thought page. Economic history is a page which I've just put up a few stub headers in to talk about the economic history of the world (ergo History of economics!). Don't revert things without looking into them. Wik idea 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Listen Athon, whatever you think about the economic history page, the title History of economics, as previously was, is now GONE. Don't revert again to the whole previous page, because that was discussed.
The choice is, either you think History of economics is a synonym for History of economic thought or you think it is a synonym for Economic history. If there's disagreement over which it is, in neither case should you be putting the previous page up, because that's already been merged (after discussion). I don't mind which it is actually - and I've changed it back to the History of economic thought page. But I would suggest that going "no no no no no" is not the best way of getting ideas across. Wik idea 10:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It's always nice to see someone interested in the Swedish language! Please ignore if you weren't attempting to write in Swedish but since I noticed you wrote something incorrectly twice, I'm pretty sure it wasn't just a typo now. The correct way to write "reply to panda" in Swedish is "svar till panda", not "svar til panda". There are Swedish-English translators on the web that you may find helpful. (Sorry, I don't know of any off the top of my head.) While I don't care if you wish to use Swedish in your edit summary, others may since this is the English Wikipedia and some editors may not understand it. If you'd like to converse in Swedish, our talk pages may be a more appropriate forum for that. –panda 14:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's now clear that consensus is for "Nobel Prize in Economics". If Liftarn continues to edit war on this I think we should request comment on his behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Proposed Template Name & Title. –panda 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you are very adamant to keep calling the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel a "Nobel Prize", but that does not give you the excuse to violate the WP:NPA policy. Note especially what is never acceptable: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor." (bolded for emphasis by me). I do not appreciate to be called a communist because I want an article to be based on facts in stead of a common misconception [2].-- Lensor 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page
Johan Galtung in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. __
meco
07:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a warning that you are far far over the 3 revert limit in the Johan Galtung article. –panda 19:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI. I've filed a Wikiquette alert about your behavior. –panda 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to this, I will ask you to stop arguing your side of the dispute on the basis that particular editors are communists, sockpuppets, or "little boys alone in their rooms in Norway." It's inappropriate, and is resulting in a hostile and inappropriate editing climate. Furthermore, your edits are open for all to see - no one can be stalking you by viewing edits that that you freely contribute to Wikipedia. If you would prefer to contribute to another encyclopedia or web forum in which your posts or edits are private, that is up to you. -- Cheeser1 16:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you have voted in the last rename request and are aware of the dispute, I would like to inform you about new page rename request at Talk:Nobel_prize_in_Economics#Compromise_move. -- Vision Thing -- 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about doing the same thing, but leaving the article to the most persistent POV pushers who are trying to drive away all editors who don't agree with them doesn't seem like a satisfying solution to me. However, I respect your decision. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I've added the other (missing) parent category, Category:Economics, for Category:Economic anthropology. It's always a good idea to find at least two parent cats when you create a new category (very few truly have only one parent). Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Anthon,
you did more than your edit summary suggested and removed citations.
Please do not do so.
In my opinion,
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Spiritualism (religious movement). Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. I apologize for making this pre-emptive action but I am attempting a pretty delicate and comprehensive tidying up of the references and citations, many of which are fairly loosely defined. Let us not over look that this matter has become somewhat personalized for you but please do not revert needlessly on an ad hoc basis or for spite. Please refer to acceptable references or citations to back your point of view.
Thank you. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Spiritualism. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
I am sorry to warn you again Anthon, but you are obviously out to edit war over this. I am happy to accept a general cleanup and stub, because that is exactly what the topic is.
I have tried to engage you in discussion. I have offered you some leads to follow up on. The article is well referenced. Yet you have made no attempt to discuss matters on either your talk page, or the topic talk page, nor on Talk:Spiritualism (religious movement).
Really, I the onus is on to at least point out where the references and citation are inappropriate. if you cant, or wont, then I am afraid I have to just see the action as a deliberate provocation.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Template:Spiritualistic_small and
Spiritualism. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Given the additional identified and erroneous acts of bad faith you can recorded against me, please Anthon, engage in the discussion.
Without doubt you are a sophisticate contributor but you appear to be ignoring or unwilling to engage in essence of this disagreement ... does spiritualism refer to merely the religious movement or a broad series of events and practises? I appreciate your wish for accuracy but I think the multifold citations bear the latter out.
I also find it difficult to reason why you wold remove Modern Spiritualism from the article.
So, please, be reasonable. I appreciate that I may Espoo might have hurt your feelings by moving the article and you blame him for losing the GA nomination ... but that was not my doing.
I do however agree and I think there is plenty of room in the wiki for all interpretations of the word ... which is what I am working to. I tend to work "llive" as it encourages other to contribute positively with their expertise and citations. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi my friend (Anthon). It is now time to look over my article on Spirituality and see what we can do with it. I has a small heart issue and was off for awhile. You are the head person on this endeavour so tell me what we need to do to use parts of it on your Spirit site. You have done a great job so far. I have never won anything on Wiki except grief and attacks. But I still keep going down the yellow brick road.
72.24.148.150 ( talk) 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
Spiritualism, you will be
blocked from editing. I am very sorry Anthon, but must warn from repeating of your previous pattern of
WP:3RRs.
* This warning is specifically for your blanking of the aforementioned page and replacing of it with a policy page.
* I also draw to your attention your repeated deletion of a template that you proposed for deletion. That attempted failed and now you appear to engaging in an edit-war.
The essence of your edit-war appears to be the inability to understand or accept the wide usage of the terms spiritualism and spiritualist throughout academia. Please appreciate that the Wikipedia is an international project and does not merely represent and American point of view alone. Please stop and address the references given. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that Nealparr made a few changes to the Spiritualism aritlces, hopefully those will help resolve the issue. Dreadstar † 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. Tossing some huge new age religion box on top of an article about Muslim religious leaders ( Marabout) was VERY problematic for me as well. You've made my life a bit easier! T L Miles ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Initially, E.B. Tylor considered using the term “spiritualism” for his theory of religion, regarding contemporary spiritualist practices in Europe as a “survival” of prehistoric religion. Like the religious beliefs and practices of indigenous people on the colonized periphery of empire, the spiritualist séance represented an unwarranted persistence in attributing life to dead matter. As a European intellectual problem, therefore, the theory of animism can be situated in the context of nineteenth-century distress about the religious implications of scientific materialism and the scientific implications of a new religious practice such as spiritualism.
In 1939, just as hostilities on the Continent began to flare up again, its findings — in the form of majority and minority reports — were kept secret, forgotten and not made public until 1979. While the intervening years saw a decrease in the outward membership in spiritualist societies which had so alarmed the Anglican establishment, there was probably an increase in the popular adherence to such beliefs.
The committee delivered its report in 1939, just as hostilities on the Continent began to flare up; its findings—in the form of majority and minority reports—were embargoed, forgotten, and not made public until 1979. The intervening years saw a decrease in the outward membership in spiritualist societies, which had so alarmed the Anglican establishment, but there was probably an increase in the popular adherence to such beliefs.
Nealparr, currently blocked, noted that you suspected Lucyintheskywithdada was a sockpuppet. If you still feel a checkuser is warranted, I suggest you do so (particularly because a positive result there will likely lead to Neal's unblocking). -- tariqabjotu 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for re-formating my list, although I still have no idea why what you did worked and mine did not. In a more perfect world someone with my level of computer understanding would not be editing Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It does look like a big, notable conference. Would you suggest we use it as an external link or in the body of the article? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 ( talk) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You have removed my reference to Spencer's influence on Hermeticism - which was supported by a citation: Yet you have left in the unsupported references to his influence on Anthropology, Town Planning, Ecology, Freud, Logical Positivism, & Sociobiology. Your only justification being "This belongs in Hermeticism - not here". The same argument could be easily applied to his influence in other areas. Spencer's influence on modern Hermeticism is a verifiable fact. It might not be a fact that you like - but that is no reason to censor it entirely. Josephus ( talk) 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has expressed concern that Kaylene Gebert is not notable. Please add references to her article to demonstrate that she is in fact notable. -- Eastmain ( talk) 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To answer your questions, obviously several people, myself included, are unhappy with the current dysgenics article. While ideological conflicts are unavoidable I think it will be possible to work on the article without edit warring. -- Zero g ( talk) 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I concede the point and have moved it back. DS ( talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I've apologised, and thankyou for telling me too. I can't help but think though, that in some cases, in sterile computer environments, people need to be told off in a human way (as you did!). I don't really go in for reporting people on vandalism pages, and that sort of thing. I expect you saw the developments on the three pages. Wik idea 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Anthon, I just noticed this article is at GAN and thought you may be interested... best, john Johnfos ( talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't do any more blind reverts to this article. You seem to have reverted simply because of what you objected to in my edit summary rather than actually reading my edit (proven by the fact that you reverted to a vandalised version of the entry by an anonymous editor). I have reverted back to the version with my edit, and also explained my edit in the talk page (something I should have done at the time I made the edit). If you object to what I have written in the article or talk page, please explain your objections in the article's talk page first rather than just reverting again. Meowy 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The anonymous edit was vandalism of the drive-by sort: without any talk page comment or even an edit summary, it removed accepted material and replaced it with something that was clearly false. If you object to what I wrote in the edit summary then that is fine - but at least I wrote something there! And it is the actual content of my edit that is important, so let's get back to that. Meowy 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 04:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
How about discussing your objections to these sections on the article talk page?-- Ramdrake ( talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm morbidly fascinated by the historical revisionists' toil over at Justin McCarthy's article. I noticed you're among those who've removed some quotations I contributed to that article. I'm wondering, are you the real deal? How on Earth can there be someone working to deny or obscure the Armenian Genocide who is not a native Turkish speaker inculcated into that cheery Anatolian culture of race-hatred?
Is this an innocent edit? Do you really not know? You can go to Amazon or Google Books yourself, find the best-selling WWI books in the English language and search for "Armenian". That you've actually requested something "peer-reviewed", this is astounding--what on Earth have you read, at all, to make such a request? [4] [5] I do not want to hear your version of what happened to the two million missing Christians. I want to know, how the heck can you exist?
I also recommend using Google Books or Amazon to search out McCarthy. He's frequently characterized as a genocide denier who stands alone, a longgggggg way from Guenther Lewy (despite your improperly cited suggestion that the two hold similar views). He's known for wacky revisionist polemic more so than scholarship. [6] [7]
But cheers on your contributions to Johan Galtung! A fascinating fellow whose bio has benefited from your presence! DBaba ( talk) 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Anthon. Thanks for your note, I am glad to know that we share interests and heritage. I do not hold any antipathy towards Joseph Greenberg - but I do hold one against bad linguistics, and his ideas of historical linguistics were notoriously bad and have been quite squarely rejected by the linguistic community in Denmark and the US (and the World), although some other (non-linguistic) fields (some anthropologists, mostly physical anthropologists) still hold on to his ideas because they go well with their own, and because they have no understanding of the shaky ground upon which he has build them. You proposed to change the word criticized with the word discussed. I disagree strongly with this change for the following reasons: Any theory in linguistics or in Science is discussed - no one proposes a theoryt that is just accepted straight away without discussion. Greenbergs theories have not just been discussed they have been widely and severely criticized, both because of the methods that he used to arrive at his conclusions, which are not believed by a majority of linguists to be able to produce any kind of reliable result, and because of the complete sloppiness in his handling of data. If you read some of the reviews of his Language in the Americas (those written by linguists) e.g. those by Ives Goddard, Lyle Campbell and other influential figures in the field you will see that it is not only criticized but also mostly rejected as resting on completely unfounded speculations. User:Taivo is a professional linguist specialising in Uto-Aztecan languages and he was present when Greenberg first presented his ideas before a conference of the worlds foremost linguists - they were at once sbject to severe criticism by all the brightest heads in the field and he never presented his theory to linguists again. As for the path of Holger Pedersen - there are Danish nostraticists - but as on the world scene of linguistics they hold a place off to one side of the mainstream - and they will stay there ubntill they find a way to succesfully show that tthe usefulness of the comparative method can be extended into the far past (+ 15,000 years ago). ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
For having inadvertantly reversed your correction to Ryukyuan languages when reverting another editor's addition of a pseudoscientific theory and a non-notable reference supporting it. I hope I have not ruined your week. Kjaer ( talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does this guy get to use Wikipedia as a resume.
He is clearly engaged in self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.92 ( talk) 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "In some cases, however, children studied have shown behavior in the opposite direction." It is available on google books: [8]. It refers to a girl born into a high-caste family who claimed to be a sewage collector. I would appreciate it if you would restore a more comprehensible version of it. Mitsube ( talk) 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I put it in a footnote--seemed the best way to make an unobtrusive response to a criticism.-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I note above that you have been made aware before of the 3 Revert Rule. There are only a few exceptions, such as removing vandalism or copyvios, but this policy applies to Reincarnation research like anywhere else. This is just a reminder. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Seems like a golden moment when a lot is getting done, and just trying to stay part of it. I think what I'm doing is within the rules--trying to rewrite passages when others wish to delete them.-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop removing valid WP:RS from this article. You have done this twice in the last 10 minutes. Please restore the last reference you have removed, and take any concerns you have to the talk page. Removing sourced, valid, material that is not a copyvio is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Verbal chat 13:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure which reference you are referring to. Sorry to put you to the bother, but it would be easiest if you reintroduce the reference that you think should have been retained. Thanks! -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It would seem I went beyond the boundaries of what wikipedia accepts as a user page. Even though I am a trouble maker, I am an easy goin' critter. So it's kaput, gone. I'm sorry. It's nice to know someone enjoyed it. Thanks. You may get a kick out of Gary Schwartz, Joseph McMoneagle, and Dean Radin. It takes all kinds. You may find Bridey Murphy of interest. It was claimed she could speak in Gaelic. She said one single word, banshee. Kazuba ( talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no explanation (or source to hand) why it's "Chavista" for both sexes... But a googling of "soy chavista" turned up this [9] Disembrangler ( talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Reincarnation research. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Verbal
chat
19:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You had written: "So, why are you here? Best to push off if your only agenda is to push ethnic hatred.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)"
In order you may not miss reading my reply, I repeat it here:
Too easy way to push off someone, who is not approved by some group that appropriated the right to write here any nonse that suits them to support their commercial and political interests. Once more: I DO NOT HATE ANYBODY, BECAUSE I AM A CHRISTIAN. There is nothing in this world that is done without the Creator's will. It is the base of my attitude to any event. And because here is not the place to propagate someone's religious believes, I offer you to discuss the problems, relating to the genetics, health, welfare and even education and popularization of the domestic feline breed that is recognized by numerous international cat fancy organizations: Turkish Van cats. And please, stop your psychological supressions and attacks, it will not work with me. I appeal only to the common sense of the people of good will.--Zara-arush (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zara-arush" -- Zara-arush ( talk) 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have updated my user page. Kazuba ( talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why you reverted my edit on the page? I undid your revert because well.. here's a short list of what I did and why. None of it is unreasonable. It covers the same information, clearer and more coherently.
-- kittyKAY4 ( talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Next time you write such an uncivil pagesum [10] you will be noticed and no thanks! Bye! Gazifikator ( talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Unless the someone intent on being a "dick" is yourself,
this edit summary looks very much like a personal attack and an attempt at mindreading, which gets no credence on Wikipedia. Please
assume good faith and acknowledge that there were considerable problems with your previous edit, which your last two edits to the article went a long way to resolving. The sections in question appear to lack
verification, it will help if you find suitable citations to avoid
original research in the form of unsupported personal opinions. Thanks,
dave souza,
talk
20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Dave, WP:DICK is jargon here. Appropriate when some editor calls a kid's edit "illiterate" and insults a school attended by 10-13 year olds.-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Anthon.Eff/Archive 1, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 00:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get around to it. Margery, Home and Palladino are more interesting to me. It seems like too long ago I read an old book that gave a very detailed explanation of the Davenports' rope tie. They were really something in their time. Don't be in a hurry, and remember stories dealing with the unknown love to grow, and they do. User:Kazuba 1 Mar 2006
Just fooling around found something that may interest you. Do a search for: my magic life david devant, that will take you to the book. In contents pick chapter 18, magic in the 19th century. Fascinating history User:Kazuba 1 Mar 2006
No, no, no, no, no. No writing for now, and this is certainly beyond the secrets of the medium, my favorite stomping grounds. The rope tie used by the Davenport Brothers is fully explained in The Master Magicians by Walter Gibson, Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York 1966. If I have seen it used I certainly did not recognize it at the time. (Which is not surprising.)I am more familiar with some other ties, that some one else reading this doesn't need to know about. Even you. If you do magic you know exactly where I am coming from. I'm gone. User:Kazuba 1 Mar 2006
Obtain a copy of Mediums and the Conjurors edited by James Webb, Ayer co Pub, 1976. It's all in there from the original prime materials. User:Kazuba 19 Mar 2006
Hi Anthon, Many years ago I was fortunate to get an introduction to Eric Dingwall from Milborne Christopher. Dingwall had lived through the grand period of spiritism and has contributed much to its history. To study the paranormal, he wrote me, it was imperative to have a knowledge of conjuring. This can take a life-time and still one is never totally prepared for something novel. Magic, or conjuring, at different levels is always in flux due to new observations, new talents, new methods, new twists. It evolves. The introduction to Mediums of the 19th Century, Vol 1, by Frank Podmore, University books, 1963, formerly Modern Spiitualism, 1902, is written by Ding. This introduction and Podmore's book will give you a small but incomplete contemporary explanation for the seduction of Doyle, Crookes and other men of science. You must try to put yourself in the place of these men in their TIME of the 19th century, who encountered the inexplicable. In many cases these individuals (Doyle) had lost a very close dear loved one (a son) and longed to again hear their reassuring voice from the otherside. I have witnessed this phenomena as it takes place in others myself. There is desperation and relief. Also see the infamous Project Alpha. Don't miss Boy's Life by Robert R. McCammon it is a real treat. You will love it. User:Kazuba 22 Mar 2006
...on Spiritualism. I'm glad that you agree that there is a need for a "Modern Spiritualism Movement" article that is distinct historical overview. The S. article is becoming too big and diverse to be useful for someone researching a movement and era rather than a philosophy or cosmology. It's all too much for me, 'tho -- I'll have to throw in the towel, there simply isn't enough time. -- user:Zosodada
Supposedly William Crookes' brother Philip died in 1867. That is probably the hook. User:Kazuba 31 Mar 2006
Take a look at The Career or Eusapia Palladino, Chapter 1 in Doyle's History of Spiritualism, Vol 2, Then read the entry for Eusapia Palladino in the Wikipedia. This is an extraordinary example of scientitists being absolutely hood-winked by an adept charlatan. Doyle ate it up. User:Kazuba 14 Apr2006
For information only: "systematic name" is generally synonymous with "specific name", just a little more highbrow and less commonly used by other than taxonomists. I don't see any reason to change it back though. -- WormRunner 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
What does "Cultures in the standard cross cultural sample" mean? What new value is added by the creation of this category? Thanks! -- Ling.Nut 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Anthon, no problem! As for the poem, you got it—it's Ladino, which is indeed very close to Spanish. Note the differences however between "ninya" and "niña", "kantando" and "cantado", etc. Cheers, Khoi khoi 00:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Anthon. Regional science is not geographical science. It is very close to economic geography, but it's focus is on region or regional economics. See here http://www.rri.wvu.edu/loveridgeintroregsci.htm and look at the figure Elements of regional science. It draws his knowledge heavily from economics and geography and other sciences but is not considered as part of any of them. I agree that many regional scientists are among geographers but as much if not more of them are economists, planners and others.
In georaphy there's regional geography which is thought in some universities that could be regarded as geographical science though there are many critics stating its non-scientific nature based on descriptive approach - gathering of information about places. It is also considered as a paradigm (approach to study - regionalism) in geographical sciences. But that's another thing. I talk too much :). GeoW 08:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you guys wore me out, so I won't pursue it if you dig your heels in, but my request on the talk page still stands: if you wish to rate the article, then please leave behind your comments, so that your rating is helpful to those of us who actually do work on the article. Thanks. Anthon.Eff 14:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Anthon, I have been learning an interesting lesson about Wikipedia. In the EVP article, I have been banned, warned and all but strung-up for editing the article because I have a "conflict of interest." It seems that any person who might benefit in some way has one. They don't apply the same rule to people who advocate the Skeptical view, even though it is clearly an ideological advocacy. Nevertheless, I think I would just be a source of tension if I began working on the Spiritual pages. Please do contact me at the http://ethericreality.aaevp.com web site if you need backup. I will be happy to do what I can, but meanwhile, you seem to be doing a great job. Tom Butler 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw your template on the history of economic thought, which I thought was very well done, and I thought you may be interested in helping me out with my template of economics as shown below. Remember 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a project for economics. But it is labeled for business and economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics. I put up the template there but have not gotten any comments yet. Remember 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yo, I have altered Template:History of economic thought so that it serves as a navigational aid rather than dead-end. However, it no longer links indirectly to the actual economists as some of your previous versions did. Consequently, I have begun creating individual templates for economists of the various schools based on this version of the template in case you are interested in contributing. To give an indication of what I intend, see Template:Mercantilism. Your co-operation would be much appreciated. Skomorokh incite 02:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I have seen the numnbers given by Ethnologue before, but the problem is they are very outdated, as most of their sources are from 70s and 80s. Normally we should not include estimates from 30 years ago. Since there are no reliable figures, in my view it is better to use more recent estimates like those in the report by the Council of Europe(which I used for some of the diaspora numbers) or CIA World Fact Book. As for assimilation, please see here [1]: The government's main strategy for assimilating the Kurds has been language suppression. Yet, despite official attempts over several decades to spread Turkish among them, most Kurds have retained their native language. I tried to add a 2006 report by European Council, which confirms the same 15-20% ratio for Kurds of Turkey. Heja Helweda 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hypnosadist posted some... unhelpful text to a lot of user talk pages. I reverted it. Normal action. Guy ( Help!) 18:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Just wanted to thank you for your encouraging words on the Reincarnation Research page. With the passing of Ian Stevenson, some interesting material came to hand, and it's been good to use this to bring the page up to standard. Once again, your comments are much appreciated. John Johnfos 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
If your statement on my talk page was a reference to my placing the Spirituality project banner on the articles in the parent Category:Spirituality, which is the stated scope of the project, then I think that your own statement may well be less than well informed. The purpose of my doing so, for what little it might be worth to you, is to find all the articles which have received some form of recognition (GA, FA, DYK, release selection), and inform the various relevant projects of those articles. Certainly, I am in no way asserting that those articles necessarily belong within the scope of a given project, simply that, by the way the article is currently categorized, they are within that project's scope. Factually, I know that several articles which haven't been touched for a long time are by modern standards miscategorized, and I hope to at least draw some attention to these articles, hopefully correcting these miscategorizations, by my actions. If there are objections to stating that a given article falls within the scope of a given project, then I clearly have no objections to having those articles' categorization changed and the banner removed. Also, for what little it's worth, it has become apparent to me that the majority of the "religion" based projects have tagged few if any of the relevant articles (I think Sikhism had all of 19 articles tagged). Also, please note that, as far as possible, when I have changed categories (generally by adding them), it is because there is specific relevant content in the article. For instance, categorizing something as Buddhist if there is a paragraph relating directly to Buddhism in the article. This is done because, unfortunately, very few if any people really are capable of knowing whether statements in a given article are necessarily accurate regarding multiple faiths which might be referenced in that article. The project specific to that faith would be more likely to know that. As stated, of course, if you believe that a given article does not fall within the scope of a given project, you are free to change it. If you do so, however, you might also want to change the categorization, because that is basically the way projects find out what articles are relevant to their projects. John Carter 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick! Thanks for writing. I had just uploaded 4 or 5 photos and put the wrong date (1974) on each of them and was in the process of correcting the captions when you wrote. They actually were all taken taken in 1973. Put it down to "Old Timer's Disease"! I should change the date in the full titles of the photos - not just the captions - but I am not sure how to do it - so have just added a note to each. Anyway, I am glad you enjoyed the photos. I hope to add more when I can find the time - they have got slightly damaged and pretty faded and need a bit of editing before I upload them. All best wishes, John Hill 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:CoraLVHatch.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, got your message. The reason I mentioned the issue of sockpuppetry is because the user put the same edit on my talk page twice through different IPs, which got under my skin. As for me removing the links, I knew they were recent Times articles; unfortunately, that article specifically has been a frequent target of POV and i'm sort of on high alert when it comes to that. In addition, I felt that they would be more appropriate in some sort of "recent events" section as opposed to external links but considering the article's aformentioned history of POV I wasn't having it.
Regardless, if you feel that my reverting was out of line then I will defer; perhaps viewing from the outside looking in gives you a clarity I don't have. I'll leave it off for now, and please don't feel shy if you notice anything else you take issue with. I rarely experience people disagreeing with my edits in a civil manner which is sad, so any future feedback is more than welcome.
MezzoMezzo
04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Anthon, not only do I like the anecdote that you begin your page with (because i think it's great to see another editor who believes in something he/she is doing), I want to ask for your help in getting a couple of pages merged - including one that you started - Schools of economics with Economic schools of thought. I'm doing this more as a wider project of creating the History of economic thought page and eventually (one never knows) making the economics page something useable. Please get back, or if you are happy to, have a go at merging. Wik idea 01:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Athon, obviously, you haven't followed what's been going on. History of economics was merged into the History of economic thought page. Economic history is a page which I've just put up a few stub headers in to talk about the economic history of the world (ergo History of economics!). Don't revert things without looking into them. Wik idea 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Listen Athon, whatever you think about the economic history page, the title History of economics, as previously was, is now GONE. Don't revert again to the whole previous page, because that was discussed.
The choice is, either you think History of economics is a synonym for History of economic thought or you think it is a synonym for Economic history. If there's disagreement over which it is, in neither case should you be putting the previous page up, because that's already been merged (after discussion). I don't mind which it is actually - and I've changed it back to the History of economic thought page. But I would suggest that going "no no no no no" is not the best way of getting ideas across. Wik idea 10:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It's always nice to see someone interested in the Swedish language! Please ignore if you weren't attempting to write in Swedish but since I noticed you wrote something incorrectly twice, I'm pretty sure it wasn't just a typo now. The correct way to write "reply to panda" in Swedish is "svar till panda", not "svar til panda". There are Swedish-English translators on the web that you may find helpful. (Sorry, I don't know of any off the top of my head.) While I don't care if you wish to use Swedish in your edit summary, others may since this is the English Wikipedia and some editors may not understand it. If you'd like to converse in Swedish, our talk pages may be a more appropriate forum for that. –panda 14:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's now clear that consensus is for "Nobel Prize in Economics". If Liftarn continues to edit war on this I think we should request comment on his behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Proposed Template Name & Title. –panda 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you are very adamant to keep calling the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel a "Nobel Prize", but that does not give you the excuse to violate the WP:NPA policy. Note especially what is never acceptable: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor." (bolded for emphasis by me). I do not appreciate to be called a communist because I want an article to be based on facts in stead of a common misconception [2].-- Lensor 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have posted comments to the page
Johan Galtung in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. __
meco
07:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a warning that you are far far over the 3 revert limit in the Johan Galtung article. –panda 19:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI. I've filed a Wikiquette alert about your behavior. –panda 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to this, I will ask you to stop arguing your side of the dispute on the basis that particular editors are communists, sockpuppets, or "little boys alone in their rooms in Norway." It's inappropriate, and is resulting in a hostile and inappropriate editing climate. Furthermore, your edits are open for all to see - no one can be stalking you by viewing edits that that you freely contribute to Wikipedia. If you would prefer to contribute to another encyclopedia or web forum in which your posts or edits are private, that is up to you. -- Cheeser1 16:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you have voted in the last rename request and are aware of the dispute, I would like to inform you about new page rename request at Talk:Nobel_prize_in_Economics#Compromise_move. -- Vision Thing -- 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about doing the same thing, but leaving the article to the most persistent POV pushers who are trying to drive away all editors who don't agree with them doesn't seem like a satisfying solution to me. However, I respect your decision. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I've added the other (missing) parent category, Category:Economics, for Category:Economic anthropology. It's always a good idea to find at least two parent cats when you create a new category (very few truly have only one parent). Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Anthon,
you did more than your edit summary suggested and removed citations.
Please do not do so.
In my opinion,
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Spiritualism (religious movement). Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. I apologize for making this pre-emptive action but I am attempting a pretty delicate and comprehensive tidying up of the references and citations, many of which are fairly loosely defined. Let us not over look that this matter has become somewhat personalized for you but please do not revert needlessly on an ad hoc basis or for spite. Please refer to acceptable references or citations to back your point of view.
Thank you. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Spiritualism. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
I am sorry to warn you again Anthon, but you are obviously out to edit war over this. I am happy to accept a general cleanup and stub, because that is exactly what the topic is.
I have tried to engage you in discussion. I have offered you some leads to follow up on. The article is well referenced. Yet you have made no attempt to discuss matters on either your talk page, or the topic talk page, nor on Talk:Spiritualism (religious movement).
Really, I the onus is on to at least point out where the references and citation are inappropriate. if you cant, or wont, then I am afraid I have to just see the action as a deliberate provocation.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Template:Spiritualistic_small and
Spiritualism. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Given the additional identified and erroneous acts of bad faith you can recorded against me, please Anthon, engage in the discussion.
Without doubt you are a sophisticate contributor but you appear to be ignoring or unwilling to engage in essence of this disagreement ... does spiritualism refer to merely the religious movement or a broad series of events and practises? I appreciate your wish for accuracy but I think the multifold citations bear the latter out.
I also find it difficult to reason why you wold remove Modern Spiritualism from the article.
So, please, be reasonable. I appreciate that I may Espoo might have hurt your feelings by moving the article and you blame him for losing the GA nomination ... but that was not my doing.
I do however agree and I think there is plenty of room in the wiki for all interpretations of the word ... which is what I am working to. I tend to work "llive" as it encourages other to contribute positively with their expertise and citations. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi my friend (Anthon). It is now time to look over my article on Spirituality and see what we can do with it. I has a small heart issue and was off for awhile. You are the head person on this endeavour so tell me what we need to do to use parts of it on your Spirit site. You have done a great job so far. I have never won anything on Wiki except grief and attacks. But I still keep going down the yellow brick road.
72.24.148.150 ( talk) 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
Spiritualism, you will be
blocked from editing. I am very sorry Anthon, but must warn from repeating of your previous pattern of
WP:3RRs.
* This warning is specifically for your blanking of the aforementioned page and replacing of it with a policy page.
* I also draw to your attention your repeated deletion of a template that you proposed for deletion. That attempted failed and now you appear to engaging in an edit-war.
The essence of your edit-war appears to be the inability to understand or accept the wide usage of the terms spiritualism and spiritualist throughout academia. Please appreciate that the Wikipedia is an international project and does not merely represent and American point of view alone. Please stop and address the references given. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that Nealparr made a few changes to the Spiritualism aritlces, hopefully those will help resolve the issue. Dreadstar † 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. Tossing some huge new age religion box on top of an article about Muslim religious leaders ( Marabout) was VERY problematic for me as well. You've made my life a bit easier! T L Miles ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Initially, E.B. Tylor considered using the term “spiritualism” for his theory of religion, regarding contemporary spiritualist practices in Europe as a “survival” of prehistoric religion. Like the religious beliefs and practices of indigenous people on the colonized periphery of empire, the spiritualist séance represented an unwarranted persistence in attributing life to dead matter. As a European intellectual problem, therefore, the theory of animism can be situated in the context of nineteenth-century distress about the religious implications of scientific materialism and the scientific implications of a new religious practice such as spiritualism.
In 1939, just as hostilities on the Continent began to flare up again, its findings — in the form of majority and minority reports — were kept secret, forgotten and not made public until 1979. While the intervening years saw a decrease in the outward membership in spiritualist societies which had so alarmed the Anglican establishment, there was probably an increase in the popular adherence to such beliefs.
The committee delivered its report in 1939, just as hostilities on the Continent began to flare up; its findings—in the form of majority and minority reports—were embargoed, forgotten, and not made public until 1979. The intervening years saw a decrease in the outward membership in spiritualist societies, which had so alarmed the Anglican establishment, but there was probably an increase in the popular adherence to such beliefs.
Nealparr, currently blocked, noted that you suspected Lucyintheskywithdada was a sockpuppet. If you still feel a checkuser is warranted, I suggest you do so (particularly because a positive result there will likely lead to Neal's unblocking). -- tariqabjotu 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for re-formating my list, although I still have no idea why what you did worked and mine did not. In a more perfect world someone with my level of computer understanding would not be editing Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It does look like a big, notable conference. Would you suggest we use it as an external link or in the body of the article? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 ( talk) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You have removed my reference to Spencer's influence on Hermeticism - which was supported by a citation: Yet you have left in the unsupported references to his influence on Anthropology, Town Planning, Ecology, Freud, Logical Positivism, & Sociobiology. Your only justification being "This belongs in Hermeticism - not here". The same argument could be easily applied to his influence in other areas. Spencer's influence on modern Hermeticism is a verifiable fact. It might not be a fact that you like - but that is no reason to censor it entirely. Josephus ( talk) 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has expressed concern that Kaylene Gebert is not notable. Please add references to her article to demonstrate that she is in fact notable. -- Eastmain ( talk) 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To answer your questions, obviously several people, myself included, are unhappy with the current dysgenics article. While ideological conflicts are unavoidable I think it will be possible to work on the article without edit warring. -- Zero g ( talk) 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I concede the point and have moved it back. DS ( talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I've apologised, and thankyou for telling me too. I can't help but think though, that in some cases, in sterile computer environments, people need to be told off in a human way (as you did!). I don't really go in for reporting people on vandalism pages, and that sort of thing. I expect you saw the developments on the three pages. Wik idea 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Anthon, I just noticed this article is at GAN and thought you may be interested... best, john Johnfos ( talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't do any more blind reverts to this article. You seem to have reverted simply because of what you objected to in my edit summary rather than actually reading my edit (proven by the fact that you reverted to a vandalised version of the entry by an anonymous editor). I have reverted back to the version with my edit, and also explained my edit in the talk page (something I should have done at the time I made the edit). If you object to what I have written in the article or talk page, please explain your objections in the article's talk page first rather than just reverting again. Meowy 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The anonymous edit was vandalism of the drive-by sort: without any talk page comment or even an edit summary, it removed accepted material and replaced it with something that was clearly false. If you object to what I wrote in the edit summary then that is fine - but at least I wrote something there! And it is the actual content of my edit that is important, so let's get back to that. Meowy 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 04:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
How about discussing your objections to these sections on the article talk page?-- Ramdrake ( talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm morbidly fascinated by the historical revisionists' toil over at Justin McCarthy's article. I noticed you're among those who've removed some quotations I contributed to that article. I'm wondering, are you the real deal? How on Earth can there be someone working to deny or obscure the Armenian Genocide who is not a native Turkish speaker inculcated into that cheery Anatolian culture of race-hatred?
Is this an innocent edit? Do you really not know? You can go to Amazon or Google Books yourself, find the best-selling WWI books in the English language and search for "Armenian". That you've actually requested something "peer-reviewed", this is astounding--what on Earth have you read, at all, to make such a request? [4] [5] I do not want to hear your version of what happened to the two million missing Christians. I want to know, how the heck can you exist?
I also recommend using Google Books or Amazon to search out McCarthy. He's frequently characterized as a genocide denier who stands alone, a longgggggg way from Guenther Lewy (despite your improperly cited suggestion that the two hold similar views). He's known for wacky revisionist polemic more so than scholarship. [6] [7]
But cheers on your contributions to Johan Galtung! A fascinating fellow whose bio has benefited from your presence! DBaba ( talk) 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Anthon. Thanks for your note, I am glad to know that we share interests and heritage. I do not hold any antipathy towards Joseph Greenberg - but I do hold one against bad linguistics, and his ideas of historical linguistics were notoriously bad and have been quite squarely rejected by the linguistic community in Denmark and the US (and the World), although some other (non-linguistic) fields (some anthropologists, mostly physical anthropologists) still hold on to his ideas because they go well with their own, and because they have no understanding of the shaky ground upon which he has build them. You proposed to change the word criticized with the word discussed. I disagree strongly with this change for the following reasons: Any theory in linguistics or in Science is discussed - no one proposes a theoryt that is just accepted straight away without discussion. Greenbergs theories have not just been discussed they have been widely and severely criticized, both because of the methods that he used to arrive at his conclusions, which are not believed by a majority of linguists to be able to produce any kind of reliable result, and because of the complete sloppiness in his handling of data. If you read some of the reviews of his Language in the Americas (those written by linguists) e.g. those by Ives Goddard, Lyle Campbell and other influential figures in the field you will see that it is not only criticized but also mostly rejected as resting on completely unfounded speculations. User:Taivo is a professional linguist specialising in Uto-Aztecan languages and he was present when Greenberg first presented his ideas before a conference of the worlds foremost linguists - they were at once sbject to severe criticism by all the brightest heads in the field and he never presented his theory to linguists again. As for the path of Holger Pedersen - there are Danish nostraticists - but as on the world scene of linguistics they hold a place off to one side of the mainstream - and they will stay there ubntill they find a way to succesfully show that tthe usefulness of the comparative method can be extended into the far past (+ 15,000 years ago). ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
For having inadvertantly reversed your correction to Ryukyuan languages when reverting another editor's addition of a pseudoscientific theory and a non-notable reference supporting it. I hope I have not ruined your week. Kjaer ( talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does this guy get to use Wikipedia as a resume.
He is clearly engaged in self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.92 ( talk) 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "In some cases, however, children studied have shown behavior in the opposite direction." It is available on google books: [8]. It refers to a girl born into a high-caste family who claimed to be a sewage collector. I would appreciate it if you would restore a more comprehensible version of it. Mitsube ( talk) 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I put it in a footnote--seemed the best way to make an unobtrusive response to a criticism.-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I note above that you have been made aware before of the 3 Revert Rule. There are only a few exceptions, such as removing vandalism or copyvios, but this policy applies to Reincarnation research like anywhere else. This is just a reminder. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Seems like a golden moment when a lot is getting done, and just trying to stay part of it. I think what I'm doing is within the rules--trying to rewrite passages when others wish to delete them.-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop removing valid WP:RS from this article. You have done this twice in the last 10 minutes. Please restore the last reference you have removed, and take any concerns you have to the talk page. Removing sourced, valid, material that is not a copyvio is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Verbal chat 13:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure which reference you are referring to. Sorry to put you to the bother, but it would be easiest if you reintroduce the reference that you think should have been retained. Thanks! -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It would seem I went beyond the boundaries of what wikipedia accepts as a user page. Even though I am a trouble maker, I am an easy goin' critter. So it's kaput, gone. I'm sorry. It's nice to know someone enjoyed it. Thanks. You may get a kick out of Gary Schwartz, Joseph McMoneagle, and Dean Radin. It takes all kinds. You may find Bridey Murphy of interest. It was claimed she could speak in Gaelic. She said one single word, banshee. Kazuba ( talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no explanation (or source to hand) why it's "Chavista" for both sexes... But a googling of "soy chavista" turned up this [9] Disembrangler ( talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Reincarnation research. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Verbal
chat
19:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You had written: "So, why are you here? Best to push off if your only agenda is to push ethnic hatred.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)"
In order you may not miss reading my reply, I repeat it here:
Too easy way to push off someone, who is not approved by some group that appropriated the right to write here any nonse that suits them to support their commercial and political interests. Once more: I DO NOT HATE ANYBODY, BECAUSE I AM A CHRISTIAN. There is nothing in this world that is done without the Creator's will. It is the base of my attitude to any event. And because here is not the place to propagate someone's religious believes, I offer you to discuss the problems, relating to the genetics, health, welfare and even education and popularization of the domestic feline breed that is recognized by numerous international cat fancy organizations: Turkish Van cats. And please, stop your psychological supressions and attacks, it will not work with me. I appeal only to the common sense of the people of good will.--Zara-arush (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zara-arush" -- Zara-arush ( talk) 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have updated my user page. Kazuba ( talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why you reverted my edit on the page? I undid your revert because well.. here's a short list of what I did and why. None of it is unreasonable. It covers the same information, clearer and more coherently.
-- kittyKAY4 ( talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Next time you write such an uncivil pagesum [10] you will be noticed and no thanks! Bye! Gazifikator ( talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Unless the someone intent on being a "dick" is yourself,
this edit summary looks very much like a personal attack and an attempt at mindreading, which gets no credence on Wikipedia. Please
assume good faith and acknowledge that there were considerable problems with your previous edit, which your last two edits to the article went a long way to resolving. The sections in question appear to lack
verification, it will help if you find suitable citations to avoid
original research in the form of unsupported personal opinions. Thanks,
dave souza,
talk
20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Dave, WP:DICK is jargon here. Appropriate when some editor calls a kid's edit "illiterate" and insults a school attended by 10-13 year olds.-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)