Per WP:CIVIL I respectfully request that you refrain from describing other editors' good-faith contributions as "crap" [1]. Kappa 15:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
For pulling no punches and never resting in the fight against insignificant and non-notable schools in Wikipedia, and for standing up to an organized, group that taunts and harasses those who disagree, I award you the Defender of the Wiki barnstar. Warmest regards -- Neutrality talk 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Duncharris. I see that you merged GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I to GWR 6000 Class without going via the AfD process - can I ask why this was? It could well be that the result of the AfD discussion would have been merge or delete anyway, but is this not a more democratic way of going about things? Regards, CLW 18:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been steadily working on Human for nearly a year now. this is what it looked like before I started. It has come a long way, and I was feeling rather proud of what might end up a featured article. Your comments were therefore quite possibly the rudest experience I have had on the wikipedia. I used to have respect for you, and I hope I will again someday. Sam Spade 20:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Dunc, I am in full agreement with you about the notability of schools in general. Some high schools, maybe, should be kept. It seems unlikely that any elementary school could possibly be worthy of an article in the Wikipedia. However, I think trying to delete schools is a lost cause. I have quit voting on AFD articles for schools. There are just too many school-inclusionists to battle against and it does not seem likely that we could prevail. I think our time could be better spent elsewhere. I am, however, still going to vote vigorously against garage bands. Keep the faith. ♠ DanMS 04:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Please do not describe me with phrases like ought to know better. Uncle Ed 22:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, thanks for making the point that members who are trusted with bureaucrat rights should be held to a higher standard, but I resigned my bureaucrat rights last month. And thanks for changing "ought to know better" to "being ... silly". Uncle Ed 17:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought it best to open up rather brusquely, given his judicious patina of praising "objectivity," only to insert usual Creationist smug b.s.
I doubt I can be made to engage him further, directly, in any way. Good or grumpy, I couldn't care less, but my feelings are said (and Ed warned).
As for the work itself, my feelings are entirely beside the point: my pride will be in helping to mold a well-written, accurate article, whatever the outcome of the case itself.
Your comment wass reasonable and appreciated. --- TCoL49
Your protection of that page was a clear abuse of power, especially since you continued editing it afterwards.
The edits were not vandalism and, while I didn't agree with them, we need to give the talk page a chance before starting dictatorial acts like the one you just did. The protection of a page should be a last resort against vandalism, not a way of avoiding other writers to express their own ideas.
-- Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
There was a content dispute, which you were a participant in, but you treated edits you disagreed with as vandalism, by use of the rollback to your preferred version, and by the caption you chose in protecting on that version. Duncharris, I really object to being treated as a vandal. I encourage you to read the comments by other editors on WP:AN/I regarding this. Jonathunder 01:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. I have to tell you that I'm don't quite understand why you moved the British invasions in Río de la Plata article to South American War. The article's title was very specific, and the exact name that is used to name them, whereas the new title absolutely vague and misleading. I would like to rename the article back, but I'm ready to listen to your arguments favouring the new name. Thank you, Mariano( t/ c) 09:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Stay sane, keep up the good work and don't let the vandals and trolls get to you. As far as I am concerned you are one of the most valuable members of our community. Your efforts are appreciated; on the rare occassions when I find myself not agreeing with you, I generally pause to make sure that my opinions are reasonable. Thanks for everything - Guettarda 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester County High School Just Look -- JAranda | yeah 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Per your comment at the DI article some months back that the ID specific content largely should go in the CSC article, I've moved it over and tightened both up. I've left some of the criticisms that apply to the DI there, though they may need some pruning too. FeloniousMonk 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I know because of User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records. I really dont have any ego :), Im just very surprised at the support. My last RFA got 20 votes in total: 4/11/5. →Journalist >>talk<< 17:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dunc! Since you don't get to delete schools much I offer you a subpage of my userpage which you may delete. I worked on an article about an 852 year old school in my userspace, at User:Sjakkalle/Bergen Katedralskole, but it is no longer needed since I have moved it into the mainspace. If you want to delete something school related, you may delete that subpage. (But please keep the mainspace article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be having a difficult time excepting that not everyone shares your POV when it comes to 'science' related articles-- WwJd 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Dunc and David, WwJd is a newbie. Please don't bite the newbies. Uncle Ed 13:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Ed, Is it normal that newbies roll in with such a strong opinion? Or is this just another sock puppet trolling wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Dunc. CLW 06:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
User Natalinasmpf is making some very strange changes to the photosynthesis article. They are in good faith but s/he seems to have quite a few misconceptions. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page but I don't think s/he will listen to my input. If you know something about this area, or know someone who does, maybe you could either join in or send them to join the discussion. I have given up reverting since Natalinasmpf reverts back immediately. Thanks for any input, David D. (Talk) 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edits? I simply added Novelty Theory, a popular pseudo-science asnd changed the form of "Gene Ray's Timecube" which is awkward, if that one should be added it still should be referenced by it's name, not by it's creator. I reverted the Scientology back to Dianetics, if that was the issue, because I think ChrisO gave a good argument. Certainly you couldn't have had any problem with BOTH Novelty Theory being added and Time Cube being referenced by it's name? Those are issues which I would expect to be hardly controversial. -- Brentt 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Duncan, I didn't mean to "take-over" your good work, the intention was just to get it right. There is limited information available, and I have some that's been handed down. I'm "vaguely" related, 3rd cousin 3 times removed. Our common ancestors were Samuel Bristowe (1694-1761) and Mary Savage (1701-1791). There were some complicated family relationships around CD and WDF's period; a lot of 1st and 2nd cousin marriages. Studying the descendants reveals that many offspring from those marriages didn't or couldn't breed successfully. Some of the branches just died out.
WDF was born at Thurlston Grange, about halfway between Elvaston and Shardlow in Derbyshire, and spent the first few years of his life there before the family acquired Osmaston Hall (sometimes known as Osmaston Manor). His parents were very rich by the standards of the day, and though WDF was the only son of Samuel Fox and Ann Darwin, he had a half brother, Samuel Fox Jnr, from his fathers first marriage to Martha Strutt from another wealthy Derby family. Marriage settlements were the thing in those days and some of these daughters of wealthy parents came attached with a dowry - or as it was called a "Marriage Settlement". Both Samuel Jnr and William D Fox were left 6,000 pounds each plus a half share in the residual of their father's estate, while each of his sisters received 1,100 pounds.
His two younger sisters lived for many years in Ladbroke Square in London and were waited on by up to six servants. One of those sisters, Frances Jane Fox in 1850 made a collection of materials and fabrics that had been worn or used by her ancestors and attached signed notes to each item describing who had worn it or where it had come from. A lot of those notes and fabrics still survive today, and I am the current "minder". The earlist is a dress worn by Mary Bristowe née Savage in a portrait painted in 1740 (the portrait is now in the Nottinghamshire Archives), while another is of a piece of furniture covering fabric which is described as covering the furniture in the sitting room at Thurlston Grange circa 1810.
I have a website covering the Bristowes and a part of the genealogy of the Fox side is shown in Sheet C in the Genealogy section via the Index.
The url is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~bristowe
Kiwi Kousin 10:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Duncharris, please unlock the Universism article - see talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universism There is going to be a feature in the LA Times about this shortly. It would be a good time to reopen the article. Universist 06:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ya'll are real attentive!
Thanks. I look forward to making relatively minor but useful contributions in the future. There's a bit to learn, but it appears the rules of common sense apply.
-- Col tom 11:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I have sent off an indefinite block against this one. I think it is our old friend Willy on Wheels again. No need to slap the sockpuppets on the wrist with a ruler, just take out the big axe and chop their heads off. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
After reading the noticeboard, it appears I was wrong. The belief there is that this series of users was another old friend, namely Wik. Sorry... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded a wrong logo and replaced by mistake the logo of BNP Paribas. I uploaded then one from it's site but it doesn;t look the same. I am sorry for the mistake and I would be thankful if you could re-upload it.
I have recently become aware that you reverted my comments towards Graft on the Talk:Evolution page. I've a full right to take back anything that I have said to anyone after I feel that amends have been made. In the future, please have the decency to notify me of such initiatives that you wish to take in affecting my image on Wikipedia, especially if you were originally uninvolved with the matter at hand. Have a nice day. Salva 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Did I ever say that I didn't write it? Who are you to intervene in a situation that does not concern you? My remarks were highly impulsive, and there was no need to have them on a public page. And I urge you to avoid making generalizations about your opponents. I'm a human being, and as such am liable to make mistakes just like you are. My actions were irresponsible and do not represent all "creationists." Salva 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't make any sense to waste my time when I'm simply ignored. I called Graft a despot because he is - he hates democracy, he's anti-american, anti-Christian, (probably anti-semitic,) pro-Islamofascist and a Neo-Darwinian. He's a despot running his own little fiefdom on Wikipedia with people like Aaarrrgh and thinks he can push objectors like creationists and ID advocates around like his beliefs matter more than theirs do. Let me tell you something, Graft, and Aaaarrgghh, you are products of typical secular University indoctrination that has fueled your contempt for, and your meandering of the scientific processes of peer review and progressivism in favor of preserving your atheist mandates. Well I won't suffer it. That paragraph is in place to confuse and obstruct the path towards truth. It's basically stating that "according to the science of biology, the origin of life can best be explained by random mutation-driven evolutionary processes, and any notion of divine intervention is bunk, and has been replaced." That is not objectivity. It's Wiki-Despotism. To my understanding - in concordance with the controversy that rages today over the origin of life (or Species, which is another word for all life that dwells on Earth,) why would it make sense for this article to claim factual accuracy on matters pertaining to the origin of life - either by way of random abiogenesis or Intelligent Design? Salva 04:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
There. Nutjob rant preserved for posterity. It really is quite funny, don't you think? Dunc| ☺ 09:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! I've fixed this one up since it was a hextuple block within a minute or so, but I just wanted to inform you that if you block a user twice, the shortest block is the one that sticks. So if you want to enhance your block, you must unblock first. Yours, R adiant _>|< 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know that the translation of "The Upanishads" by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1884 is still copyrighted #8-) Afsi 23:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my simple error in such a publicly sarcastic manner. Eddie.willers 17:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't had any time to do this recently. I am away all weekend now, and so it will be Tuesday evening at the absolute earliest before I get any chance to even look at it, and realistically as I'm likely to have in the order of 400 photos of my own to sort through (I've got photos unsorted from trips I went on over a year ago still!) then its not going to happen soon. Whithout having seen the source photographs yet I don't know whether it will take me a few mintues or a couple of hours to get a decent panorama with the software I have. Sorry. Thryduulf 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know anything about trains. The TVR is just local to me, and all I wrote about the TVR, I just got from a book. Varitek 08:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello Duncharris,
Many thanks for your welcome, most kind of you.
I am retired and now living in Llandudno. Formerly of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I was born and educated in Crewe. I have an abiding interest in railways and I am a long standing member of the Ffestiniog and WHR(C) societies and heritage groups. I produce websites for my parish church and for Cytûn, Llandudno Churches Together: http://www.llandudnochurches.org.uk and for my own pleasure: http://www.greatorme.org.uk.
Regards,
NoelWalley
81.154.223.166 07:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Well done on getting a photo of Novelty at Rainhill in 1980.
I have a few photos I took myself of Novelty from 2002 and this year, as well as other photos of the TV filming in 2002. Only problem is I have not got my head around loading photos onto the system and allocating copyright details
Sorry, my knowledge of locomotives and rolling stock is very generalised. Regards, Noel.
Thanks for the photo in the present, it's a nice one. Seems like there should be enough information to create an stub on the Port Talbot Railway & Docks Company and an article on the class of locos. Any idea if those were the only type of locos that the company used, and what class of locos GWR considered to be? Otherwise something like GWR "Port Talbot" Class might be appropriate. Cheers. chowells 13:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Duncharris,
what you have against changing the critisism of pseudoscience page done by me couple of minutes ago?
All the best, Sasha. -- Iskander32 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Dunc,
I see that you are also a scientist. I have nothing by an objective interest in AIG, as I find humor in their egregious "theories". AIG is a phenominon which should be documented. I have posted a few criticisms, a ëvolution of their theory, and a letter which I sent to them. Please do not mistake my curiousity with my condoning their conduct or anti-science. I believe the things I have posted have an anthropological distance from the material, and are neutrally describing what they believe and how they act. In the letter, they proclaim ricidulous things like "plants not being alive". Anyone who reads the letter will find that it is riddled with things that they simply made up to make the ends meet in their philosophy.
Thanks,
Reid 21:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: I just saw that you deleted my material. Dunc, c'mon. I just spent two hours preparing that material on AIG, you could have at least read some of it. I do not want a wiki-war, but I would like to restore my additions to the article, as they are a neutral description in every way. Please let me know if you are ok with this.
Reid 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Dunc,
Thanks for the partial nod of approval. Would it be alright if we restored the old version, but without the letter part? The part about how they hate Intelligent design, but eventually begin to condone it is really fascinating.
Dunc, I thought you said it was cool. I understand the letter not being in wiki-format, but the change of their belief structure is integral to an impartial perspective. Please don't delete it just to be a wiki-vigilante. My intentions are not to endorse creationism, but to illustrate their theories in the manner an anthropologist describes primitive tribes.
Dear Duncharris,
We have already discussed the paragraph I wrote with others - see the part in the archive connected with the "Scientists_against_pseudoscience" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudoscience#Scientists_against_pseudoscience. It seems to me that I was able to persuade others that something needs to be written which would stress that "pseudoscience" was used a lot to punish people - please read the corresponding section of the archive and links therein.
You see, many scientists were fired, killed or committed suicide only because "mainstream" science did not believe their theories (which were proved to be Ok at the end). I think that we need to reflect this in the criticism section. Instead, at the moment, the criticism section looks like an apology for the concept of "pseudoscience".
If you will continue to block this correction - I will probably produce an alternative page with the list of scientists who suffered because of the pseudosience label and make a reference to it in the main article.
Although, I have no idea what you do not like in my correction.
All the best, Sasha. -- Iskander32 16:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello Dunc,
Am I using the NSR Talk page correctly?
Regards, Noel NoelWalley 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Were there two types of LMS Stanier 2-6-4T? There is the one for the current article, but there is a Stanier 2-6-4T no. 2500 built in 1934 preserved at the National Railway Museum that isn't mentioned (and doesn't fall within the number range). Our Phellap 22:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi I notice you are reverting when a certain user is trying to move people out of the British category. My personal view is that generally a lot of English people see themselves as British, but maybe Scottish or Welsh people like more to identify with their own countries. However I think certain admins have a thing about moving people to the most "exact" sub category, which in my opinion is totally destructive. For example people have been moving people out of Category:People from New York City to Category:Manhattanites and Category:Brooklynites. How far is this going to go- are they going to move people out of those categories to which street they lived in? This would make categories totally useless imo. Arniep 19:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
There may have been some use of it toward the end of the 19th century, but all the builder's photos that I've seen from American builders use the equipment's in-service paint. It was the photographer's responsibility to ensure that the details could be seen; many photos were modified to remove any background as well, such as the PRR image at right (judging by the angle of the shadows on the locomotive, this photo was probably taken early in the morning). slambo 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1 in 37.7 rounds to 1 in 38, not 1 in 37. The claim of steepest sustained is an arguable concept and needs qualification. Please see my words (and make response) on Lickey Incline Talk page Bob aka Linuxlad 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
just wondering how/why you know so much about the mitchison family? i don't use wikipedia that often, so if you want to reply you could use b e a t b o x e d @ h o t m a i l . c o m cheers, mark x
Thanks for tidying the article up. It has grown a bit haphazardly as I've been trying to sort out "fact" from fiction.
Barry
The Soton University reproduction of a letter from the Geologist in 1862 would indicate the to me the content is no longer copyrighted. Perhaps a courtesy email to Soton University might clarify the situation. It seems to me that it might be a good idea to include a separate section in the current article dealing with WDF's geological and palaentology interests. Many of the Dinosaur sites have doubtful information regarding WDF in their content. It would seem when they make mention of Charles Darwin starting his thesis "On the Evolution of the Species" while staying on the IOW they had no idea that he was staying with WDF or that they were related.
Barry
Did you use the rollback function here to revert my changes to Phillip E. Johnson? I thought you might have, because the comment in the edit summary looks just like the sort of text that rollback automatically generates.
I undid your revert, but than you re-did it. What is so urgent about this matter that (a) you had no time to write an edit summary and (b) even afterwards, you left no message on the discussion page or on my user talk page? Uncle Ed 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
What's going on at
Phillip E. Johnson? You've reverted Ed four times, which
isn't cool. Perhaps you should stop to discuss what you're doing.
The Uninvited Co.,
Inc.
23:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Technically you only get 3 reverts a day per article regardless of whose revisions you're reverting. In any case, while Ed may well have been POV pushing (I have no idea since I am unfamiliar with the topic), I and many others would appreciate it if you would refrain from edit wars with him, or for that matter, anyone else. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Will organise the text mentioned into Wikisource. - Kiwi Kousin 08:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I have put a photo of No 18 at Crewe in LNWR days on my web site: http://www.greatorme.org.uk/NSRSynopsis.htm It looks like an L Class but of course I don't know them well enough to be sure. I rediscovered the print (given to me nearly 60 years ago by the photographer's nephew) two days ago when looking for something else. You are welcome to a copy. NoelWalley 18:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You have been summoned to appear as defendant at a Request for Abritation. Please vist the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page to make your statement under the heading Ben. -- Ben 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Didn't realise there was a WDF(palaeontologist) page. That being the case, then no-one had realised he was the same person.
I'll leave the article alone as the source of some of the information on the DinoWight site is not known, but may have come from the BBC h2g2 site. I have some more info, and when I have it sorted, I'll put it up for discussion. - Kiwi Kousin 23:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
g'day, my name is Graham from Australia
I read the edit on haldane's dilemma and saw it was completely wrong so i made some changes as a stepping stone to something more complete.
My guess is that whoever wrote the article (Was it you?) heard the dilemma explained in laymens terms or something and unfortunately the laymen's explanation led to a complete misconception of the theory.
Haldane's dilemma does NOT come from tacking one substitution after another.
Haldane's dilemma is that it takes just as long to substitute n alleles simultaneously as it takes to substitute them in series. The dilemma is purely mathematical although my write up was an attempt to write it in laymans terms without stripping it of meaning. I'm reverting it back please talk to me in the discussion section
Hello Duncharris, thank you for the info on my German Discusson-page. I will reupload the image. Silberchen 08:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi there - saw you removed my little paragraph on ID-related goings on in Europe. Fair enough but do you think there might be a space for this kind of link elsewhere in the article? Or maybe you think it's irrelevant? I'm new to the Wikipedia so I'll leave it in your hands but I thought it may be worth noting somewhere that the movement is starting to spread outside of US borders... Schama
Hi again - you're obviously a seasoned and sophisticated Wikipedia editor though your command of the French language seems to be somewhat doubtful. I take it that you are, like me and many others, a strong critic of the whole ID movement. Friggin' strong. But not, I hope, to the extent that you can no longer look at the issues objectively. I added the link to the 'Inside Story' page which, if you think is some kind of promotion for ID, you've completely mis-read. It seems you understand the article to mean that it's the 'théorie de l'évolution' which is 'contestée'. But if you'd read a little more carefully you'd realise that it's the alternative, wacko, 'Inside Story theory of evolution' which is 'contestée'. About a week ago a documentary was shown on national French TV presenting this so-called 'theory'. It was followed by a debate during which a panel of scientists trashed what they saw as pseudoscientific nonsense 'une version française du Intelligent Design'. It caused something of a storm in French intellectual circles and the media who were convinced that France was impermeable to such ideas (see the links to the article in Le Monde). Pretty damn negative just in case you're wondering.
In view of the comments you left on the French site, having marked it up as biased, it strikes me you don't actually know what you're talking about - and this is rather a shame considering the sensitive nature of this subject. I thought the Wikipedia project somehow had an inbuilt system for assuring quality control.
cheers! Schama
a
Regarding article Quantum evolution. You removed the following for the reason "It is utter garbarge":
Quantum evolution is the hypothesis that genetic mutation is adaptive, or directed through quantum effects.
I quote from the back cover of the book "Quantum Evolution - Life in the Multiverse" by Johnjoe McFadden (a leading theorist in this area, and Professor at Surrey University - i.e. someone who knows more about this than you):
Now although this is from the back cover (i.e. hype) it nevertheless reflects the current idea/hypothesis of what quantum evolution is/means.
I have therefore re-added the section you removed. Please continue this discussion on the Talk:Quantum_evolution page if you wish :)
Regards ( Theboywonder 13:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC))
I noticed you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red screen of death. Could you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dunc,
I have been translating some articles from en to de. Each time I have added the interwikilink in en manually. So this is not a bot activity. Are such changes supposed to be done from a bot account?
Kind regards,
Heiko Evermann 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Duncharris,
If you 'know you shouldn't', why do you do it? [4]
Regards, Ben Aveling 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Duncharris,
At 21:33 you are on my page, agreeing that taunting people is wrong, and within 60 seconds you are taunting NewGuy, here on your talk page, in the section right below this one.
This behaviour is disrepectful. Please stop taunting people, regardless of how much you feel they deserve it.
Regards, Ben Aveling 01:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would leave the 'attacked' in the Darwin's Legacy bit alone; the theory did NOT overturn Creationist biology. Thanks. The New Guy
Could you explain why 'attack' keeps getting reverted to 'overturn' in the article on Darwin? The theory of evolution has not 'overturned' anything.
Greetings,Mr Duncharris.Sorry for my schoolcruft article.Anyway,what's that BEEFSTEW thing you mentioned?Sorry for my late reply... Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 02:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Duncharris
I work for Rail Europe, which is the UK subsidiary of SNCF (we're also Eurostar's sister company). We added a link to the Eurostar page yesterday which was promptly reverted back to the previous version. As this is my first time on Wikipedia, and not being very familiar with the guidelines, please could you let me know why this is? Also, if there's any possibility of including our (relevant) links to this page?
Our sites include:
Best Regards
Caroline Heaton eCommerce Executive Rail Europe Ltd
Hi. Thank you for the prompt response. Rail Europe is a 100% SNCF owned and Eurostar is a 70% SNCF owned. We are a sister company (rather than an agent) and we both promote each other's products for mutual gain. I respect your decision to remove the link. However, I hope this clarification may help you reconsider your position on this matter.
Hi, I'm seeking a deleted Wikipedia entry dated Aug. 30 that I'd love to have for posterity. I have no desire to see it published, I'd just like to be able to access and keep the text. I'd apppreciate it if you could me privately at sklarra@gmail.com so I can give you the details. Thank you.
I'd like to thank you for nominating Jason Gastrich for deletion. Writing an encyclopedia is a serious prject, and there are only rare occasions for mirth. This nomination has generatd more merriment than I can recall recently. I always crack a smile when I read over the line, "[P]eople love him for his numerous Wikipedia entries". Though humorous I know your action had a serious purpose, which I thank you for as well, of course. OTOH, doesn't this passage:
truly reflect the core of Wikipedia's philosophy (if not its orthography)? Hmmmmm. - Willmcw 11:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Check out this page Dunc, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jas, you'll find it very amusing. It looks like Jason gave the wrong URL to all his supporters. Every edit is a one off user. How do you imagine they found this page? LOL David D. (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
They're more the exception than the rule. The only type that I can think of off the top of my head is the Little Joe type that was used on the Milwaukee Road and the South Shore. Those were originally built for export to Russia, but were diverted to US roads after the revolution there, and the cabs at one end of them were disabled (in the Milwaukee Road's case, the windows were even plated over). slambo 16:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Just be aware that there is no place on Wikipedia for offensive edit summaries, such as [5]. I understand that you might have been frustrated by the CSD tag being applied, but there is nt excuse for insults or personal attacks. Thryduulf 14:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to join the project but was unsure how to do so.
Thanks. Suicidalhamster 00:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, looks like another sock puppet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chacha1
Mark K. Bilbo 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be hard pressed to call it "religiously inspired." He expends a great deal of effort on getting his own name and website(s) into the Wiki (or whatever forum he's in at the time). Looks more like simple self-promotion than religion. Mark K. Bilbo 16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Duncharris —
unblocking yourself is quite explicitly forbidden in the blocking policy. To wit: "Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so. If an admin feels they were not blocked for a valid reason, the safest course is to contact the blocking admin, another admin, or the mailing list and ask to be unblocked."
I've reblocked you, particularly as I believe the earlier block was well-founded (there was no call for saying "fuck off" to someone who puts a seemingly valid notice on your article), but most importantly because you should sort it out with someone else first rather than unblocking yourself. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Asbestos, I thought admins could unblock themselves. I've done it before, but found that I couldn't today. Anyway, it was such a ridiculous ban it was hardly worth commenting on.
I admit I shouldn't have sworn, but Ed's action was completely out of proportion and a deliberate escalation. And anyway user:Thryduulf had already told me off, politely. I didn't realise everyone was so bloody sensitive. — Dunc| ☺ 17:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. Please, however, be more civil in your edit summaries, and do not use your admin powers to self-unblock in the future. Phil Sandifer 17:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Below is your message to me about my 'vandalism', along with my reply.
"Please do not add speedy delete tags to pages that do not qualify as
such. It is considered vandalism.
— Dunc| ☺ 14:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- So one-line gibberish pages and movies that don't exist aren't
- quailified for speedy deletion? I don't get it. I patrol Newpages
- and try to help out, and I get warned. Meanwhile, another user adds
- a speedy delete tag to an article when the
- consensus was "keep" and no one cares. - Kookykman| (t) e"
This has gone unanswered on my talk page. It seems as though you don't revisit the talk pages of those you accuse of vandalism. Although my words were somewhat harsh in my reply, my message still stands: my actions were a good-faith attempt to help this encyclopedia and its members. - Kookykman| (t) e
A cursory grep of your contributions to Wikipedia shows that you have made the following edit summaries:
Please note that these are only summaries, in some cases it appears that your actual page changes, when comments left to another member of Wikipedia, were even more offensive. Since this has not been resolved through repeated requests for civility on your talk page, I would like to open this up for broader discussion on RFC. Silensor 20:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Pleaase do not use your administrative rollback in POV disputes, like you have recently done at Carl Baugh. You should know better (and it's not the first time it's been brought up). I shouldn't have to point an admin to policy pages, but perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Revert#Admins if you have any confusion over the rollback button's purpose. It's just for simple vandalism. Thanks. Dmcdevit· t 20:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I've been blocked for no good reason again...
Look, I don't care if you are being criticized for other things, but that does not warrant your dismissive (frankly rude) comment here. POV disputes are not simple vandalism. An admin should know better. You've done it before, too. I'm asking you to maturely consider your actions, and act more apropriately in the future. Don't just blow it off. Dmcdevit· t 23:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it. If you insist on using the rollback feature for non-vandalism edits, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.
Just on the off-chance that you were not aware, you are being discussed at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Just thought you'd like to know if you already didn't. See you around. -- LV (Dark Mark) 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Deleting other user's comments on talk pages is considered vandalism. [27] - Kookykman| (t) e
Please repond to your RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris. Silensor 23:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hy man I am sorry that Jimbo Wales wants you to be de-administrator-ised man... that sucks... Wiki brah 05:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions regarding my behavior. I'll return the advice, and suggest that you consider the appropriateness of your actions as well. Kindest regards, Nandesuka 23:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for this appology, it is exactly what I was was hoping for as an outcome to the RfC. Would you mind copying it to the RfC page so that more people are aware of it. Hopefully this will allow the RfC to be closed. Thryduulf 14:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Proper or not, disruptive or not, sockpuppets are against policy. That was basically just a notice that if he does anything outside of just one account, i'll block them all. Karmafist 18:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Duncharris,
Why did you delete my example of the primrose plant? It's a fine example of Microevolution.
Regards,
-- Jason Gastrich 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, it makes a little more sense now. Well of course there is no absolute dividing line between microevolution and macroevolution, merely a reductionist v holistic approach, both of which reveal different aspects of evolution. But I would have it as speciation or an ploidy mutation -- I think it best not to confuse people with it anyway. — Dunc| ☺ 22:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Have included a url in the William Darwin Fox discussion page to a Darwin 4 Generation Family Tree from Robert Darwin down to CD & WDF which includes the Fox, Galton and Wedgwood connections. Would you mind having a look and letting me know if you consider it ok to include with the article.
Have also had a look at your Darwin list of articles that need fixing up and note that Sir Francis Sacheverel Darwin is not amongst them. Could make a good project. He was an MD and spent some time touring the Med trying to understand the spread of diseases etc. Got his "gong" through saying nice things about the King! - Kiwi Kousin 07:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Why am I allowed to just click edit and change whatever I want, with no kind of disclaimer, yet I'm REALLY not allowed to make any real changes. Whoever is in charge of this site needs to make clear the rules for editing, because there are none.
And there is just misinformation on this page (i.e. it says ID has not published any peer-reviewed articles...they have published many, and some of what is said is not true at all). I doubt I'll even be able to change them though.
Is there some other way for me to respond besides clicking on your name, and the link?
"represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view".
I don't understand this - Einstein's relativity theory used to be the minority view, but how does this imply that it was more likely to be pseudoscience than science, and Newtonian physics (at the time) considered scientific? This quote should just get rid of the "scientific" and "pseudoscientific", because in truth BOTH the majority and minority view can be scientific or not, which history has proven more than once.
"please do not make drastic changes to articles without mentioning them on the talk page first. We've gone through all this before with Dembski's page but sensible suggestions will be taken on board."
I understand but this should be EXPLICIT when you click on the "edit" button in the first place.
"Write about your favourite music group or something else that interests you that isn't a controversial issue just to learn the ropes?"
I'm not sure why you are telling me this - I care about cleaning up misinformation so that people don't have a false conception of something, I don't have much interest in adding different ideas. Just correcting mistakes in this case.
I have studied the ID and evolution debate for years both in and out of my university and it's patently obvious that there is a huge slant in the page, and in many cases false information. I really don't mean to be condescending in any way but the reason you don't see the slant and I do is because I have studied a large portion of Dembski's work and know the issue very thoroughly.
The page is well-written, and it is no doubt the most subtle and best disguised slant I've seen on ID, but it was still not hard for me to recognize one bit.
Hello Duncharris. Can you please explain why you reverted the Category edits that I did ? If I understood the categorization policies clearly, having both a category and a subcategory of that category on the same article is not considered to be a good thing. So what did I do wrong ? Thanks. -- Ze miguel 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I've just noticed that my first attempt to contribute in this forum, on page " The_Origin_of_Species", was reverted by you without any justification. From what I have learned by examining this forum, it seems appropriate a revert be explained (justified, at least some little effort). This is disconcerting, since I did enough research in advance to be at least resonably confident that I was acting properly in submitting this change.
Please explain on the discussion of that page why you reverted my changes without explaination, why this was done as a "minor" edit, and provide your justifcation for reverting my changes.
I appreciate that you appear to be a long time contribtor, whereas I have made it very clear I am new; however, if anything, it seems this would increase your obligations in this respect rather than reduce it.
- Cris: Csmwiki 00:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I have proposed a reform of this category that you might be interested in commenting on. See Category talk:Railway stations in the United Kingdom for details. Thryduulf 02:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep cool. On procedure, I may be a bit hamfisted. On the subject matter, I am pretty well qualified in this area, and no chicken. The continuity tack is not a fact but a POV. It has also not been supported by a good number of Anglican diocesan entries. And my auntie (Anglican) would have done something terrible to anyone who tried to maintain it. Anything I have written has aimed at courtesy and avoiding any sort of polemics. The articles are also nobody's property. It the odd Anglican doesn't like it, perhaps some animist will. Thanks for the reaction, however. Regards.
Hi Dunc. You're a known (UK) bruiser. Could you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Telestylo:_whilst.2Fwhile, and perhaps User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Please_don.27t_vandalize. Thanks. William M. Connolley 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
Hi Dunc,
I hope you're well.
I've added a paragraph on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible entry for info on rebuttals. I know the people who deleted the original mention of a rebuttal. They'll certainly return and change or delete my most recent contribution. Please drop by that entry and see what happens. I see no reason why the info about rebuttals should be removed.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich -- Jason Gastrich 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Does The_Great_Snipe_Hunt fit the "speedy delete" criteria? Looks like somebody's idea of a joke. And where do you point these things out? Is there a page to tug on the pant leg of admins in general and point "lookie lookie?" Mark K. Bilbo 02:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Per WP:CIVIL I respectfully request that you refrain from describing other editors' good-faith contributions as "crap" [1]. Kappa 15:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
For pulling no punches and never resting in the fight against insignificant and non-notable schools in Wikipedia, and for standing up to an organized, group that taunts and harasses those who disagree, I award you the Defender of the Wiki barnstar. Warmest regards -- Neutrality talk 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Duncharris. I see that you merged GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I to GWR 6000 Class without going via the AfD process - can I ask why this was? It could well be that the result of the AfD discussion would have been merge or delete anyway, but is this not a more democratic way of going about things? Regards, CLW 18:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been steadily working on Human for nearly a year now. this is what it looked like before I started. It has come a long way, and I was feeling rather proud of what might end up a featured article. Your comments were therefore quite possibly the rudest experience I have had on the wikipedia. I used to have respect for you, and I hope I will again someday. Sam Spade 20:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Dunc, I am in full agreement with you about the notability of schools in general. Some high schools, maybe, should be kept. It seems unlikely that any elementary school could possibly be worthy of an article in the Wikipedia. However, I think trying to delete schools is a lost cause. I have quit voting on AFD articles for schools. There are just too many school-inclusionists to battle against and it does not seem likely that we could prevail. I think our time could be better spent elsewhere. I am, however, still going to vote vigorously against garage bands. Keep the faith. ♠ DanMS 04:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Please do not describe me with phrases like ought to know better. Uncle Ed 22:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, thanks for making the point that members who are trusted with bureaucrat rights should be held to a higher standard, but I resigned my bureaucrat rights last month. And thanks for changing "ought to know better" to "being ... silly". Uncle Ed 17:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought it best to open up rather brusquely, given his judicious patina of praising "objectivity," only to insert usual Creationist smug b.s.
I doubt I can be made to engage him further, directly, in any way. Good or grumpy, I couldn't care less, but my feelings are said (and Ed warned).
As for the work itself, my feelings are entirely beside the point: my pride will be in helping to mold a well-written, accurate article, whatever the outcome of the case itself.
Your comment wass reasonable and appreciated. --- TCoL49
Your protection of that page was a clear abuse of power, especially since you continued editing it afterwards.
The edits were not vandalism and, while I didn't agree with them, we need to give the talk page a chance before starting dictatorial acts like the one you just did. The protection of a page should be a last resort against vandalism, not a way of avoiding other writers to express their own ideas.
-- Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
There was a content dispute, which you were a participant in, but you treated edits you disagreed with as vandalism, by use of the rollback to your preferred version, and by the caption you chose in protecting on that version. Duncharris, I really object to being treated as a vandal. I encourage you to read the comments by other editors on WP:AN/I regarding this. Jonathunder 01:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. I have to tell you that I'm don't quite understand why you moved the British invasions in Río de la Plata article to South American War. The article's title was very specific, and the exact name that is used to name them, whereas the new title absolutely vague and misleading. I would like to rename the article back, but I'm ready to listen to your arguments favouring the new name. Thank you, Mariano( t/ c) 09:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Stay sane, keep up the good work and don't let the vandals and trolls get to you. As far as I am concerned you are one of the most valuable members of our community. Your efforts are appreciated; on the rare occassions when I find myself not agreeing with you, I generally pause to make sure that my opinions are reasonable. Thanks for everything - Guettarda 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester County High School Just Look -- JAranda | yeah 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Per your comment at the DI article some months back that the ID specific content largely should go in the CSC article, I've moved it over and tightened both up. I've left some of the criticisms that apply to the DI there, though they may need some pruning too. FeloniousMonk 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I know because of User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records. I really dont have any ego :), Im just very surprised at the support. My last RFA got 20 votes in total: 4/11/5. →Journalist >>talk<< 17:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dunc! Since you don't get to delete schools much I offer you a subpage of my userpage which you may delete. I worked on an article about an 852 year old school in my userspace, at User:Sjakkalle/Bergen Katedralskole, but it is no longer needed since I have moved it into the mainspace. If you want to delete something school related, you may delete that subpage. (But please keep the mainspace article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be having a difficult time excepting that not everyone shares your POV when it comes to 'science' related articles-- WwJd 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Dunc and David, WwJd is a newbie. Please don't bite the newbies. Uncle Ed 13:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Ed, Is it normal that newbies roll in with such a strong opinion? Or is this just another sock puppet trolling wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Dunc. CLW 06:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
User Natalinasmpf is making some very strange changes to the photosynthesis article. They are in good faith but s/he seems to have quite a few misconceptions. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page but I don't think s/he will listen to my input. If you know something about this area, or know someone who does, maybe you could either join in or send them to join the discussion. I have given up reverting since Natalinasmpf reverts back immediately. Thanks for any input, David D. (Talk) 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edits? I simply added Novelty Theory, a popular pseudo-science asnd changed the form of "Gene Ray's Timecube" which is awkward, if that one should be added it still should be referenced by it's name, not by it's creator. I reverted the Scientology back to Dianetics, if that was the issue, because I think ChrisO gave a good argument. Certainly you couldn't have had any problem with BOTH Novelty Theory being added and Time Cube being referenced by it's name? Those are issues which I would expect to be hardly controversial. -- Brentt 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Duncan, I didn't mean to "take-over" your good work, the intention was just to get it right. There is limited information available, and I have some that's been handed down. I'm "vaguely" related, 3rd cousin 3 times removed. Our common ancestors were Samuel Bristowe (1694-1761) and Mary Savage (1701-1791). There were some complicated family relationships around CD and WDF's period; a lot of 1st and 2nd cousin marriages. Studying the descendants reveals that many offspring from those marriages didn't or couldn't breed successfully. Some of the branches just died out.
WDF was born at Thurlston Grange, about halfway between Elvaston and Shardlow in Derbyshire, and spent the first few years of his life there before the family acquired Osmaston Hall (sometimes known as Osmaston Manor). His parents were very rich by the standards of the day, and though WDF was the only son of Samuel Fox and Ann Darwin, he had a half brother, Samuel Fox Jnr, from his fathers first marriage to Martha Strutt from another wealthy Derby family. Marriage settlements were the thing in those days and some of these daughters of wealthy parents came attached with a dowry - or as it was called a "Marriage Settlement". Both Samuel Jnr and William D Fox were left 6,000 pounds each plus a half share in the residual of their father's estate, while each of his sisters received 1,100 pounds.
His two younger sisters lived for many years in Ladbroke Square in London and were waited on by up to six servants. One of those sisters, Frances Jane Fox in 1850 made a collection of materials and fabrics that had been worn or used by her ancestors and attached signed notes to each item describing who had worn it or where it had come from. A lot of those notes and fabrics still survive today, and I am the current "minder". The earlist is a dress worn by Mary Bristowe née Savage in a portrait painted in 1740 (the portrait is now in the Nottinghamshire Archives), while another is of a piece of furniture covering fabric which is described as covering the furniture in the sitting room at Thurlston Grange circa 1810.
I have a website covering the Bristowes and a part of the genealogy of the Fox side is shown in Sheet C in the Genealogy section via the Index.
The url is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~bristowe
Kiwi Kousin 10:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Duncharris, please unlock the Universism article - see talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universism There is going to be a feature in the LA Times about this shortly. It would be a good time to reopen the article. Universist 06:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ya'll are real attentive!
Thanks. I look forward to making relatively minor but useful contributions in the future. There's a bit to learn, but it appears the rules of common sense apply.
-- Col tom 11:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I have sent off an indefinite block against this one. I think it is our old friend Willy on Wheels again. No need to slap the sockpuppets on the wrist with a ruler, just take out the big axe and chop their heads off. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
After reading the noticeboard, it appears I was wrong. The belief there is that this series of users was another old friend, namely Wik. Sorry... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded a wrong logo and replaced by mistake the logo of BNP Paribas. I uploaded then one from it's site but it doesn;t look the same. I am sorry for the mistake and I would be thankful if you could re-upload it.
I have recently become aware that you reverted my comments towards Graft on the Talk:Evolution page. I've a full right to take back anything that I have said to anyone after I feel that amends have been made. In the future, please have the decency to notify me of such initiatives that you wish to take in affecting my image on Wikipedia, especially if you were originally uninvolved with the matter at hand. Have a nice day. Salva 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Did I ever say that I didn't write it? Who are you to intervene in a situation that does not concern you? My remarks were highly impulsive, and there was no need to have them on a public page. And I urge you to avoid making generalizations about your opponents. I'm a human being, and as such am liable to make mistakes just like you are. My actions were irresponsible and do not represent all "creationists." Salva 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't make any sense to waste my time when I'm simply ignored. I called Graft a despot because he is - he hates democracy, he's anti-american, anti-Christian, (probably anti-semitic,) pro-Islamofascist and a Neo-Darwinian. He's a despot running his own little fiefdom on Wikipedia with people like Aaarrrgh and thinks he can push objectors like creationists and ID advocates around like his beliefs matter more than theirs do. Let me tell you something, Graft, and Aaaarrgghh, you are products of typical secular University indoctrination that has fueled your contempt for, and your meandering of the scientific processes of peer review and progressivism in favor of preserving your atheist mandates. Well I won't suffer it. That paragraph is in place to confuse and obstruct the path towards truth. It's basically stating that "according to the science of biology, the origin of life can best be explained by random mutation-driven evolutionary processes, and any notion of divine intervention is bunk, and has been replaced." That is not objectivity. It's Wiki-Despotism. To my understanding - in concordance with the controversy that rages today over the origin of life (or Species, which is another word for all life that dwells on Earth,) why would it make sense for this article to claim factual accuracy on matters pertaining to the origin of life - either by way of random abiogenesis or Intelligent Design? Salva 04:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
There. Nutjob rant preserved for posterity. It really is quite funny, don't you think? Dunc| ☺ 09:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! I've fixed this one up since it was a hextuple block within a minute or so, but I just wanted to inform you that if you block a user twice, the shortest block is the one that sticks. So if you want to enhance your block, you must unblock first. Yours, R adiant _>|< 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know that the translation of "The Upanishads" by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1884 is still copyrighted #8-) Afsi 23:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my simple error in such a publicly sarcastic manner. Eddie.willers 17:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't had any time to do this recently. I am away all weekend now, and so it will be Tuesday evening at the absolute earliest before I get any chance to even look at it, and realistically as I'm likely to have in the order of 400 photos of my own to sort through (I've got photos unsorted from trips I went on over a year ago still!) then its not going to happen soon. Whithout having seen the source photographs yet I don't know whether it will take me a few mintues or a couple of hours to get a decent panorama with the software I have. Sorry. Thryduulf 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know anything about trains. The TVR is just local to me, and all I wrote about the TVR, I just got from a book. Varitek 08:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello Duncharris,
Many thanks for your welcome, most kind of you.
I am retired and now living in Llandudno. Formerly of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I was born and educated in Crewe. I have an abiding interest in railways and I am a long standing member of the Ffestiniog and WHR(C) societies and heritage groups. I produce websites for my parish church and for Cytûn, Llandudno Churches Together: http://www.llandudnochurches.org.uk and for my own pleasure: http://www.greatorme.org.uk.
Regards,
NoelWalley
81.154.223.166 07:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Well done on getting a photo of Novelty at Rainhill in 1980.
I have a few photos I took myself of Novelty from 2002 and this year, as well as other photos of the TV filming in 2002. Only problem is I have not got my head around loading photos onto the system and allocating copyright details
Sorry, my knowledge of locomotives and rolling stock is very generalised. Regards, Noel.
Thanks for the photo in the present, it's a nice one. Seems like there should be enough information to create an stub on the Port Talbot Railway & Docks Company and an article on the class of locos. Any idea if those were the only type of locos that the company used, and what class of locos GWR considered to be? Otherwise something like GWR "Port Talbot" Class might be appropriate. Cheers. chowells 13:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Duncharris,
what you have against changing the critisism of pseudoscience page done by me couple of minutes ago?
All the best, Sasha. -- Iskander32 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Dunc,
I see that you are also a scientist. I have nothing by an objective interest in AIG, as I find humor in their egregious "theories". AIG is a phenominon which should be documented. I have posted a few criticisms, a ëvolution of their theory, and a letter which I sent to them. Please do not mistake my curiousity with my condoning their conduct or anti-science. I believe the things I have posted have an anthropological distance from the material, and are neutrally describing what they believe and how they act. In the letter, they proclaim ricidulous things like "plants not being alive". Anyone who reads the letter will find that it is riddled with things that they simply made up to make the ends meet in their philosophy.
Thanks,
Reid 21:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: I just saw that you deleted my material. Dunc, c'mon. I just spent two hours preparing that material on AIG, you could have at least read some of it. I do not want a wiki-war, but I would like to restore my additions to the article, as they are a neutral description in every way. Please let me know if you are ok with this.
Reid 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Dunc,
Thanks for the partial nod of approval. Would it be alright if we restored the old version, but without the letter part? The part about how they hate Intelligent design, but eventually begin to condone it is really fascinating.
Dunc, I thought you said it was cool. I understand the letter not being in wiki-format, but the change of their belief structure is integral to an impartial perspective. Please don't delete it just to be a wiki-vigilante. My intentions are not to endorse creationism, but to illustrate their theories in the manner an anthropologist describes primitive tribes.
Dear Duncharris,
We have already discussed the paragraph I wrote with others - see the part in the archive connected with the "Scientists_against_pseudoscience" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudoscience#Scientists_against_pseudoscience. It seems to me that I was able to persuade others that something needs to be written which would stress that "pseudoscience" was used a lot to punish people - please read the corresponding section of the archive and links therein.
You see, many scientists were fired, killed or committed suicide only because "mainstream" science did not believe their theories (which were proved to be Ok at the end). I think that we need to reflect this in the criticism section. Instead, at the moment, the criticism section looks like an apology for the concept of "pseudoscience".
If you will continue to block this correction - I will probably produce an alternative page with the list of scientists who suffered because of the pseudosience label and make a reference to it in the main article.
Although, I have no idea what you do not like in my correction.
All the best, Sasha. -- Iskander32 16:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello Dunc,
Am I using the NSR Talk page correctly?
Regards, Noel NoelWalley 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Were there two types of LMS Stanier 2-6-4T? There is the one for the current article, but there is a Stanier 2-6-4T no. 2500 built in 1934 preserved at the National Railway Museum that isn't mentioned (and doesn't fall within the number range). Our Phellap 22:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi I notice you are reverting when a certain user is trying to move people out of the British category. My personal view is that generally a lot of English people see themselves as British, but maybe Scottish or Welsh people like more to identify with their own countries. However I think certain admins have a thing about moving people to the most "exact" sub category, which in my opinion is totally destructive. For example people have been moving people out of Category:People from New York City to Category:Manhattanites and Category:Brooklynites. How far is this going to go- are they going to move people out of those categories to which street they lived in? This would make categories totally useless imo. Arniep 19:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
There may have been some use of it toward the end of the 19th century, but all the builder's photos that I've seen from American builders use the equipment's in-service paint. It was the photographer's responsibility to ensure that the details could be seen; many photos were modified to remove any background as well, such as the PRR image at right (judging by the angle of the shadows on the locomotive, this photo was probably taken early in the morning). slambo 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1 in 37.7 rounds to 1 in 38, not 1 in 37. The claim of steepest sustained is an arguable concept and needs qualification. Please see my words (and make response) on Lickey Incline Talk page Bob aka Linuxlad 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
just wondering how/why you know so much about the mitchison family? i don't use wikipedia that often, so if you want to reply you could use b e a t b o x e d @ h o t m a i l . c o m cheers, mark x
Thanks for tidying the article up. It has grown a bit haphazardly as I've been trying to sort out "fact" from fiction.
Barry
The Soton University reproduction of a letter from the Geologist in 1862 would indicate the to me the content is no longer copyrighted. Perhaps a courtesy email to Soton University might clarify the situation. It seems to me that it might be a good idea to include a separate section in the current article dealing with WDF's geological and palaentology interests. Many of the Dinosaur sites have doubtful information regarding WDF in their content. It would seem when they make mention of Charles Darwin starting his thesis "On the Evolution of the Species" while staying on the IOW they had no idea that he was staying with WDF or that they were related.
Barry
Did you use the rollback function here to revert my changes to Phillip E. Johnson? I thought you might have, because the comment in the edit summary looks just like the sort of text that rollback automatically generates.
I undid your revert, but than you re-did it. What is so urgent about this matter that (a) you had no time to write an edit summary and (b) even afterwards, you left no message on the discussion page or on my user talk page? Uncle Ed 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
What's going on at
Phillip E. Johnson? You've reverted Ed four times, which
isn't cool. Perhaps you should stop to discuss what you're doing.
The Uninvited Co.,
Inc.
23:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Technically you only get 3 reverts a day per article regardless of whose revisions you're reverting. In any case, while Ed may well have been POV pushing (I have no idea since I am unfamiliar with the topic), I and many others would appreciate it if you would refrain from edit wars with him, or for that matter, anyone else. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Will organise the text mentioned into Wikisource. - Kiwi Kousin 08:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I have put a photo of No 18 at Crewe in LNWR days on my web site: http://www.greatorme.org.uk/NSRSynopsis.htm It looks like an L Class but of course I don't know them well enough to be sure. I rediscovered the print (given to me nearly 60 years ago by the photographer's nephew) two days ago when looking for something else. You are welcome to a copy. NoelWalley 18:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You have been summoned to appear as defendant at a Request for Abritation. Please vist the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page to make your statement under the heading Ben. -- Ben 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Didn't realise there was a WDF(palaeontologist) page. That being the case, then no-one had realised he was the same person.
I'll leave the article alone as the source of some of the information on the DinoWight site is not known, but may have come from the BBC h2g2 site. I have some more info, and when I have it sorted, I'll put it up for discussion. - Kiwi Kousin 23:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
g'day, my name is Graham from Australia
I read the edit on haldane's dilemma and saw it was completely wrong so i made some changes as a stepping stone to something more complete.
My guess is that whoever wrote the article (Was it you?) heard the dilemma explained in laymens terms or something and unfortunately the laymen's explanation led to a complete misconception of the theory.
Haldane's dilemma does NOT come from tacking one substitution after another.
Haldane's dilemma is that it takes just as long to substitute n alleles simultaneously as it takes to substitute them in series. The dilemma is purely mathematical although my write up was an attempt to write it in laymans terms without stripping it of meaning. I'm reverting it back please talk to me in the discussion section
Hello Duncharris, thank you for the info on my German Discusson-page. I will reupload the image. Silberchen 08:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi there - saw you removed my little paragraph on ID-related goings on in Europe. Fair enough but do you think there might be a space for this kind of link elsewhere in the article? Or maybe you think it's irrelevant? I'm new to the Wikipedia so I'll leave it in your hands but I thought it may be worth noting somewhere that the movement is starting to spread outside of US borders... Schama
Hi again - you're obviously a seasoned and sophisticated Wikipedia editor though your command of the French language seems to be somewhat doubtful. I take it that you are, like me and many others, a strong critic of the whole ID movement. Friggin' strong. But not, I hope, to the extent that you can no longer look at the issues objectively. I added the link to the 'Inside Story' page which, if you think is some kind of promotion for ID, you've completely mis-read. It seems you understand the article to mean that it's the 'théorie de l'évolution' which is 'contestée'. But if you'd read a little more carefully you'd realise that it's the alternative, wacko, 'Inside Story theory of evolution' which is 'contestée'. About a week ago a documentary was shown on national French TV presenting this so-called 'theory'. It was followed by a debate during which a panel of scientists trashed what they saw as pseudoscientific nonsense 'une version française du Intelligent Design'. It caused something of a storm in French intellectual circles and the media who were convinced that France was impermeable to such ideas (see the links to the article in Le Monde). Pretty damn negative just in case you're wondering.
In view of the comments you left on the French site, having marked it up as biased, it strikes me you don't actually know what you're talking about - and this is rather a shame considering the sensitive nature of this subject. I thought the Wikipedia project somehow had an inbuilt system for assuring quality control.
cheers! Schama
a
Regarding article Quantum evolution. You removed the following for the reason "It is utter garbarge":
Quantum evolution is the hypothesis that genetic mutation is adaptive, or directed through quantum effects.
I quote from the back cover of the book "Quantum Evolution - Life in the Multiverse" by Johnjoe McFadden (a leading theorist in this area, and Professor at Surrey University - i.e. someone who knows more about this than you):
Now although this is from the back cover (i.e. hype) it nevertheless reflects the current idea/hypothesis of what quantum evolution is/means.
I have therefore re-added the section you removed. Please continue this discussion on the Talk:Quantum_evolution page if you wish :)
Regards ( Theboywonder 13:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC))
I noticed you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red screen of death. Could you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dunc,
I have been translating some articles from en to de. Each time I have added the interwikilink in en manually. So this is not a bot activity. Are such changes supposed to be done from a bot account?
Kind regards,
Heiko Evermann 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Duncharris,
If you 'know you shouldn't', why do you do it? [4]
Regards, Ben Aveling 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Duncharris,
At 21:33 you are on my page, agreeing that taunting people is wrong, and within 60 seconds you are taunting NewGuy, here on your talk page, in the section right below this one.
This behaviour is disrepectful. Please stop taunting people, regardless of how much you feel they deserve it.
Regards, Ben Aveling 01:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would leave the 'attacked' in the Darwin's Legacy bit alone; the theory did NOT overturn Creationist biology. Thanks. The New Guy
Could you explain why 'attack' keeps getting reverted to 'overturn' in the article on Darwin? The theory of evolution has not 'overturned' anything.
Greetings,Mr Duncharris.Sorry for my schoolcruft article.Anyway,what's that BEEFSTEW thing you mentioned?Sorry for my late reply... Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 02:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Duncharris
I work for Rail Europe, which is the UK subsidiary of SNCF (we're also Eurostar's sister company). We added a link to the Eurostar page yesterday which was promptly reverted back to the previous version. As this is my first time on Wikipedia, and not being very familiar with the guidelines, please could you let me know why this is? Also, if there's any possibility of including our (relevant) links to this page?
Our sites include:
Best Regards
Caroline Heaton eCommerce Executive Rail Europe Ltd
Hi. Thank you for the prompt response. Rail Europe is a 100% SNCF owned and Eurostar is a 70% SNCF owned. We are a sister company (rather than an agent) and we both promote each other's products for mutual gain. I respect your decision to remove the link. However, I hope this clarification may help you reconsider your position on this matter.
Hi, I'm seeking a deleted Wikipedia entry dated Aug. 30 that I'd love to have for posterity. I have no desire to see it published, I'd just like to be able to access and keep the text. I'd apppreciate it if you could me privately at sklarra@gmail.com so I can give you the details. Thank you.
I'd like to thank you for nominating Jason Gastrich for deletion. Writing an encyclopedia is a serious prject, and there are only rare occasions for mirth. This nomination has generatd more merriment than I can recall recently. I always crack a smile when I read over the line, "[P]eople love him for his numerous Wikipedia entries". Though humorous I know your action had a serious purpose, which I thank you for as well, of course. OTOH, doesn't this passage:
truly reflect the core of Wikipedia's philosophy (if not its orthography)? Hmmmmm. - Willmcw 11:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Check out this page Dunc, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jas, you'll find it very amusing. It looks like Jason gave the wrong URL to all his supporters. Every edit is a one off user. How do you imagine they found this page? LOL David D. (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
They're more the exception than the rule. The only type that I can think of off the top of my head is the Little Joe type that was used on the Milwaukee Road and the South Shore. Those were originally built for export to Russia, but were diverted to US roads after the revolution there, and the cabs at one end of them were disabled (in the Milwaukee Road's case, the windows were even plated over). slambo 16:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Just be aware that there is no place on Wikipedia for offensive edit summaries, such as [5]. I understand that you might have been frustrated by the CSD tag being applied, but there is nt excuse for insults or personal attacks. Thryduulf 14:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to join the project but was unsure how to do so.
Thanks. Suicidalhamster 00:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, looks like another sock puppet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chacha1
Mark K. Bilbo 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be hard pressed to call it "religiously inspired." He expends a great deal of effort on getting his own name and website(s) into the Wiki (or whatever forum he's in at the time). Looks more like simple self-promotion than religion. Mark K. Bilbo 16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Duncharris —
unblocking yourself is quite explicitly forbidden in the blocking policy. To wit: "Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so. If an admin feels they were not blocked for a valid reason, the safest course is to contact the blocking admin, another admin, or the mailing list and ask to be unblocked."
I've reblocked you, particularly as I believe the earlier block was well-founded (there was no call for saying "fuck off" to someone who puts a seemingly valid notice on your article), but most importantly because you should sort it out with someone else first rather than unblocking yourself. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Asbestos, I thought admins could unblock themselves. I've done it before, but found that I couldn't today. Anyway, it was such a ridiculous ban it was hardly worth commenting on.
I admit I shouldn't have sworn, but Ed's action was completely out of proportion and a deliberate escalation. And anyway user:Thryduulf had already told me off, politely. I didn't realise everyone was so bloody sensitive. — Dunc| ☺ 17:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. Please, however, be more civil in your edit summaries, and do not use your admin powers to self-unblock in the future. Phil Sandifer 17:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Below is your message to me about my 'vandalism', along with my reply.
"Please do not add speedy delete tags to pages that do not qualify as
such. It is considered vandalism.
— Dunc| ☺ 14:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- So one-line gibberish pages and movies that don't exist aren't
- quailified for speedy deletion? I don't get it. I patrol Newpages
- and try to help out, and I get warned. Meanwhile, another user adds
- a speedy delete tag to an article when the
- consensus was "keep" and no one cares. - Kookykman| (t) e"
This has gone unanswered on my talk page. It seems as though you don't revisit the talk pages of those you accuse of vandalism. Although my words were somewhat harsh in my reply, my message still stands: my actions were a good-faith attempt to help this encyclopedia and its members. - Kookykman| (t) e
A cursory grep of your contributions to Wikipedia shows that you have made the following edit summaries:
Please note that these are only summaries, in some cases it appears that your actual page changes, when comments left to another member of Wikipedia, were even more offensive. Since this has not been resolved through repeated requests for civility on your talk page, I would like to open this up for broader discussion on RFC. Silensor 20:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Pleaase do not use your administrative rollback in POV disputes, like you have recently done at Carl Baugh. You should know better (and it's not the first time it's been brought up). I shouldn't have to point an admin to policy pages, but perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Revert#Admins if you have any confusion over the rollback button's purpose. It's just for simple vandalism. Thanks. Dmcdevit· t 20:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I've been blocked for no good reason again...
Look, I don't care if you are being criticized for other things, but that does not warrant your dismissive (frankly rude) comment here. POV disputes are not simple vandalism. An admin should know better. You've done it before, too. I'm asking you to maturely consider your actions, and act more apropriately in the future. Don't just blow it off. Dmcdevit· t 23:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it. If you insist on using the rollback feature for non-vandalism edits, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.
Just on the off-chance that you were not aware, you are being discussed at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Just thought you'd like to know if you already didn't. See you around. -- LV (Dark Mark) 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Deleting other user's comments on talk pages is considered vandalism. [27] - Kookykman| (t) e
Please repond to your RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris. Silensor 23:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hy man I am sorry that Jimbo Wales wants you to be de-administrator-ised man... that sucks... Wiki brah 05:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions regarding my behavior. I'll return the advice, and suggest that you consider the appropriateness of your actions as well. Kindest regards, Nandesuka 23:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for this appology, it is exactly what I was was hoping for as an outcome to the RfC. Would you mind copying it to the RfC page so that more people are aware of it. Hopefully this will allow the RfC to be closed. Thryduulf 14:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Proper or not, disruptive or not, sockpuppets are against policy. That was basically just a notice that if he does anything outside of just one account, i'll block them all. Karmafist 18:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Duncharris,
Why did you delete my example of the primrose plant? It's a fine example of Microevolution.
Regards,
-- Jason Gastrich 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, it makes a little more sense now. Well of course there is no absolute dividing line between microevolution and macroevolution, merely a reductionist v holistic approach, both of which reveal different aspects of evolution. But I would have it as speciation or an ploidy mutation -- I think it best not to confuse people with it anyway. — Dunc| ☺ 22:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Have included a url in the William Darwin Fox discussion page to a Darwin 4 Generation Family Tree from Robert Darwin down to CD & WDF which includes the Fox, Galton and Wedgwood connections. Would you mind having a look and letting me know if you consider it ok to include with the article.
Have also had a look at your Darwin list of articles that need fixing up and note that Sir Francis Sacheverel Darwin is not amongst them. Could make a good project. He was an MD and spent some time touring the Med trying to understand the spread of diseases etc. Got his "gong" through saying nice things about the King! - Kiwi Kousin 07:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Why am I allowed to just click edit and change whatever I want, with no kind of disclaimer, yet I'm REALLY not allowed to make any real changes. Whoever is in charge of this site needs to make clear the rules for editing, because there are none.
And there is just misinformation on this page (i.e. it says ID has not published any peer-reviewed articles...they have published many, and some of what is said is not true at all). I doubt I'll even be able to change them though.
Is there some other way for me to respond besides clicking on your name, and the link?
"represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view".
I don't understand this - Einstein's relativity theory used to be the minority view, but how does this imply that it was more likely to be pseudoscience than science, and Newtonian physics (at the time) considered scientific? This quote should just get rid of the "scientific" and "pseudoscientific", because in truth BOTH the majority and minority view can be scientific or not, which history has proven more than once.
"please do not make drastic changes to articles without mentioning them on the talk page first. We've gone through all this before with Dembski's page but sensible suggestions will be taken on board."
I understand but this should be EXPLICIT when you click on the "edit" button in the first place.
"Write about your favourite music group or something else that interests you that isn't a controversial issue just to learn the ropes?"
I'm not sure why you are telling me this - I care about cleaning up misinformation so that people don't have a false conception of something, I don't have much interest in adding different ideas. Just correcting mistakes in this case.
I have studied the ID and evolution debate for years both in and out of my university and it's patently obvious that there is a huge slant in the page, and in many cases false information. I really don't mean to be condescending in any way but the reason you don't see the slant and I do is because I have studied a large portion of Dembski's work and know the issue very thoroughly.
The page is well-written, and it is no doubt the most subtle and best disguised slant I've seen on ID, but it was still not hard for me to recognize one bit.
Hello Duncharris. Can you please explain why you reverted the Category edits that I did ? If I understood the categorization policies clearly, having both a category and a subcategory of that category on the same article is not considered to be a good thing. So what did I do wrong ? Thanks. -- Ze miguel 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I've just noticed that my first attempt to contribute in this forum, on page " The_Origin_of_Species", was reverted by you without any justification. From what I have learned by examining this forum, it seems appropriate a revert be explained (justified, at least some little effort). This is disconcerting, since I did enough research in advance to be at least resonably confident that I was acting properly in submitting this change.
Please explain on the discussion of that page why you reverted my changes without explaination, why this was done as a "minor" edit, and provide your justifcation for reverting my changes.
I appreciate that you appear to be a long time contribtor, whereas I have made it very clear I am new; however, if anything, it seems this would increase your obligations in this respect rather than reduce it.
- Cris: Csmwiki 00:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I have proposed a reform of this category that you might be interested in commenting on. See Category talk:Railway stations in the United Kingdom for details. Thryduulf 02:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep cool. On procedure, I may be a bit hamfisted. On the subject matter, I am pretty well qualified in this area, and no chicken. The continuity tack is not a fact but a POV. It has also not been supported by a good number of Anglican diocesan entries. And my auntie (Anglican) would have done something terrible to anyone who tried to maintain it. Anything I have written has aimed at courtesy and avoiding any sort of polemics. The articles are also nobody's property. It the odd Anglican doesn't like it, perhaps some animist will. Thanks for the reaction, however. Regards.
Hi Dunc. You're a known (UK) bruiser. Could you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Telestylo:_whilst.2Fwhile, and perhaps User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Please_don.27t_vandalize. Thanks. William M. Connolley 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
Hi Dunc,
I hope you're well.
I've added a paragraph on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible entry for info on rebuttals. I know the people who deleted the original mention of a rebuttal. They'll certainly return and change or delete my most recent contribution. Please drop by that entry and see what happens. I see no reason why the info about rebuttals should be removed.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich -- Jason Gastrich 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Does The_Great_Snipe_Hunt fit the "speedy delete" criteria? Looks like somebody's idea of a joke. And where do you point these things out? Is there a page to tug on the pant leg of admins in general and point "lookie lookie?" Mark K. Bilbo 02:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)