![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hi there. I couldn't answer sooner because I've been busy on RL. I thought of replacing the redirect with a stub on the company, but I looked at their imdb page and it appears that they are a young company that has only made a few documentaries. Also, I saw no mentions of them on magazines about films, and I didn't see any indication that any of their documentaries has become famous or make a remarkable addition to the field of documentaries or any other sort of remarkable achievement. This probably means that don't have enough notability to even create a stub. They also do documentaries on request (I imagine that they get paid for doing fluff jobs for artists)
I edited the documentaries page to remove the self redirect [1], and I saw that the article not only has been prodded for notability [2], which means that the article will be deleted in 5 days if the prod is not contested, but the that the creator and only contributor to the page has been blocked for "creating non-notable pages", see User talk:Hashmi, Usman, so I assume that the page will most probably be deleted.
That means that the redirect will be orphaned on a few days. Unfortunately, it seems that according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects, and the speedu templates available, you can only speedy vandalism redirects, nonsense redirects, or redirects resulting from a page move. Since the problem with this one is notability, then it *has* to be nominated on WP:TFD (altought, if it's orphaned, maybe you can get away with using {{ db-g6}} or with giving a good reason with {{ db-reason}})
Since this user is well-known on WP:RFD, I would just go and nominate it directly. If you don't know how to do it, then tell me and I will do it for you. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear John, to avoid cluttering up the talk page, I put my response here:
Referencing is fine. For example in the case of
Augustin Louis Cauchy a reference would demonstrate he spent his life trying convert people to Catholicism. Also
Gregor Mendel is a no-brainer as he was both a scientist and a Catholic Abbot....a reference would bear this out. In the case of someone like
Enrico Fermi a reference would confirm that he was a nominal Catholic of the type
that only turned up for weddings and funerals. I do not see a problem here.
Bletchley (
talk)
12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Your concerns are well voiced and will hopefully elicit the appropriate response. My cheap shots were aimed at another. A great deal of effort went into obtaining the copy-right on that image; their suggestion that it was random or slapped up and that we were that dim witted at the time of the articles inception was taken personally. I suggest you allow the discussion to lay dormant a bit. I've added my last bit of tongue and cheek commentary. If there is no further dialog; consensus is in your favor. Then edit as you see fit.-- JimmyButler ( talk) 15:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You shouldn't censor variances in models of evolution just because of your own POV, beliefs, or what ever. Information and facts presented in a logical way should be available to the general public. If you have a problem with that, you should have created a talk page rather then start an edit war. Sfvace ( talk) 03:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, note taken. Leandro GFC Dutra ( talk) 11:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reformulation of the lead in genetic drift. Maybe obvious to you, but I saw the need without being able to fulfil it. -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for your comments about Thehelpfulbot, I'll explain the answer to each of your questions:
Hope this helps,
The Helpful One 19:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This i.p. address is the i.p. address for a high school. I myself attend it, and have logged on on these computers a few times. If it is possible, and you know how, and you have the authority, I'd suggest blocking it, as the few people in this small High school that I know do constructive edits, all have an account. I would say something needs to be done, because almost all the edits have been vandalism. Alan16 talk 12:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox Scientist#Images are still messed up. 129.15.131.185 ( talk) 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
{{
editprotected}}
.
Johnuniq (
talk)
00:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)If only it had an output of 425 megawatts - wouldn't that be nice! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. What was the problem with this reference? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, as it turned out, I had to rewrite most of this article to get some kind of consistency. The main change was to move from adaptation solely as a product of evolution, to the more important idea of adaptation as a process.
I think it's now well past Start Class, so when you go there next time you might have a think about reclassifying it. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the article needs your attention. 91.98.184.50 ( talk) 14:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, in response to this, may I link you to Category talk:Dichotomies#What is dichotomy anyway? You may be kind enough to reply there. -- KYPark ( talk) 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know that FES School has been redirected to FES Matriculation School (which has had it's speedy removed and since been prodded). Also, a7 doesn't apply to schools so in future please don't nom schools under that criteria. Cheers - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 12:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq,
I see you have deleted the links I posted on The Cube, The Doors of Perception and Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer with the comment "Spamlink". I don't understand what you mean by that, because all these links have educational value and are non-commercially.
Regards -- Controle2 ( talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Johnuniq, for fixing those broken links for me!
I'm curious--does Wikipedia run any sort of link checking software to find and fix broken links automatically? 69.251.164.54 ( talk) 06:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't click on your link until now. You said that "I have finished fixing them" but it seems you only reduced the number of broken links from around 50 to 17. I have no idea why the others remained behind, but thought you ought to know. 69.251.164.54 ( talk) 07:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I misunderstood. I thought you meant you didn't bother to note the corrections of the dead links on all of the pages where they existed, that you just changed the links automatically without the changes registering in the history of all those pages or something. My mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.164.54 ( talk) 08:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You worded that is not-something [3]. Do you rely want to talk about it? If so please feel free to open the talk page on it. Perhaps you can define your objection Right now its hardly to replay to you in more detailed way. I think you will praise this as best atempt to wikilowe. 24.15.127.200 ( talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comments are appreciated! Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Why have you so quickly deemed all my entries to be reverted on site?
After the posting about 'conflict' of interest on my discussion page I understand that I shouldn't keep linking to IBISWorld everytime I write an economic/industry entry so I will refrain from doing this anymore unless it is crucial to the entry.
Other editors have been encouraging me to continue going on with this task of adding economic and industry style entries based on proper sources.
The "lollies" I am writing are from legitimate encyclopedic sources that add weight to the article. Can you please outline why the posts are deemed as inappropriate?
I changed the user name because I was advised by an editor to keep posting but from a less promotional name.
I will also remove most of the links to IBISWorld from my old posts as well. ( IndustryProj ( talk) 13:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
re [4]: a) added verbatim structured ancestral population from source (source added), b) wikilinked to best explanation c) fixed obvious mispeling. I believe obvious but its always OK to ask. 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 04:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#thinktalk.com
Much appreciated.
I did preserve the other link at Sparks's page on the talk page in case some interested editor decides it really should be there and brings it into compliance with wp:EL, and re-adds it. - sinneed ( talk) 02:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Without seeking to offend any of the editors involved in the decision to remove references to spiritoftheages.com, the comments - including that site has "[n]o encyclopedic purpose for ...[Wikipedia] readers" - seems inaccurate and the action to remove links based upon such comments removes links for readers interested in that artists and artwork accessible on the various links. In making that comment, I would note that spiritoftheages.com is clearly under continuous development - I have noted regular revisions to the site with many of the more recent updates involving the inclusion of considerable material derived from original sources (inclusive of details around publishing, illustrations, the artists and the text related to the illustrations). Some of that information has directly contributed to Wikipedia articles. Further, in a number of cases, the link site (spiritoftheages.com) has highly detailed information of research value that does not otherwise appear to be available on the web - examples that spring to mind are the emerging practice on the site to accompany images with associated text (as is the case in Vernon Hill's illustrations to Ballads Weird and Wonderful), Holbein's illustrations to The Praise of Folly (Moriae Encomium) [in that example, the illustrations are shown with both French and English translations of Erasmus' text], illustrations shown from Der Weiss Kunig (where extracts of translated text from the medieval German is shown on occasions), Der Todten-Tantz (where German and English text is shown with the associated image) and Michaud's The History of the Crusades (where Dore's illustrations are shown with Michaud's associated text). I do appreciate the comments about spam and the like, but believe this to be a significant resource that has relevance to Wikipedia users (and rather than go ahead with inserting references again, would appreciate some considered comment about the points I have raised before taking such potentially inflammatory action). Ruderabbit007 ( talk) 09:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There certainly seem to be a lot of assumptions being made by some otherwise well-intentioned editors, including that I am working for spiritoftheages.com and thus, am "obviously ... looking for places fo Wikipedia where ... [I]can inject links to ... [the] site". That response seems overly emotional and loaded with defamatory assumptions that betray a zealotry that is unwarranted in editing - similar to many of the justifications used, including that "the images are postage stamp sized" and the like (obviously the size of the images depends on the screen resolution - and not all users have hi-def screens). For some time, I have been adding information to Wikipedia on various subjects - and I will continue to do so. Ruderabbit007 ( talk) 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason this article was nominated for deletion is because it was vandalized by IP address # 71.36.101.63. Prior to the vandalism, the article was approved by several administrators, with a few minor changes. It was posted for 4 weeks before it was altered by # 71.36.101.63, and during that time there were no complaints. All the deletion related complaints were logged during the interval when the article was vandalized. Thanks so much- Hhtttt ( talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
there is no single current scientific citation on H-O on polygenism either.
Please show what do you have to add to something nobody in science debate and how you want to reach consensus? Is your aim to diverge the description of scientific debate between two somehow valid conception the 'mainstream' RR v ME by staffing it by undigestible nonsenses ? 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 03:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
76.16.176.166 ( talk) 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
re to this:
Hi! Have you read the sources of Celestial Heights before you suggested deleting the article? You said there are no sources to support its land sales is second highest in Hong Kong history. But did you read the source of http://www.robroad.com/data/2006/0719/article_71129_1.htm ? It said "Cheung Kong Holdings to 9.42 billion won huge price "Ho Man Tin plots." This is the highest since 1997, the price of single plots." This shows it is a fact with reliable source. If you don't know too much on Hong Kong buildings, you'd better understand it. But please don't delete it because you (or some of the people) want to delete it. Ricky@36 ( talk) 01:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up; I'll add {{ editprotected}}. Eubulides ( talk) 02:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
My "merge" !vote was in response to claims in the previous AfD that "sourced content would be lost in a deletion". If the sourced content was covered in/merged to other articles, the arguement of "lost content" has no basis and we are free to discuss whether the article has merit to stand on its own, which I do not feel an article about the "controversy" does.
I have offered another option on the AfD. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This article, which had been stable for some time, has attracted the attentions of a newish contributor, whose edits are costing me much time and trouble. So I'm asking for some help and/or advice. The main problem, as I see it, is that he doesn't understand enough to appreciate that his contributions are a) not improvements, and b) disruptive. (He is not, as far as I can see, being deliberately disruptive.) This is an article which is on the evol biol slate, and I am not anxious to walk away from it, but it does illustrate the irony that well-meaning but ignorant editing can do more damage than outright vandalism. I have tried to explain on talk page, but he goes on and on. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had both open at once, I must have chosen the wrong window. However, I'd think personally that the XfD would cover both, so I don't think it is a big problem. Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. No one who read my posts said anything near what ThaddeusB said to me, so, it was worth trying to clear up; but once he continued to show he was not reading anyone's posts, as others pointed out to him, there was nothing to do.
Still, I'm human and appreciate that other editors, such as yourself and Hesperian, and most of the editors at the AfD, and a number on the BAG board, saw that my comments were intended to start a needed community discussion to improve wikipedia by preventing similar events from occurring.
There were low level programming mistakes that should not have occurred. A group that has the right to authorize bots should bear some responsibility for the actions and inactions of bot owners-such as a bot owner who is as unresponsive to errors as Martin was (for months). It's my opinion that this could improve the way bots are used on wikipeida: having someone be responsible for monitoring them, for owners responding to errors, for stopping bots with the most basic programming errors. If I wrote software or an algorithm like this, I'd lose my job. If this group doesn't want responsibility, they should lose the right to authorize bots. Again, my opinion.
Thanks. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 06:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your comments at Jimbo's talk page, and thought I'd swing by here rather than contribute to the signal / noise over there - hope you don't mind :-) - you raised the possibility that a 'superadmin' is a necessary / desirable role, and I wondered if you'd considered whether or not that would apply to (for example) the german, french etc. wikipedias who don't have such a chap? - regardless, I think the point is interesting, but ultimately not hugely relevant to the specific discussion over there which by my reading is more about a specific block and discussion than the more general abstract point? Nice to 'meet' you anywhoo, and see you around :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 11:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"There may be a tendency for factions of admins to form" I thought that was the primary organising principle on ANI :) Guettarda ( talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks very much for cleaning up the spammed links to the watch site. I took a break after reporting and blocking all the SPAs, and came back to find that you'd removed the links, saving me a whole bunch of additional time. I appreciate it. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello - and thanks for the edit
Is there a way to prevent WP:UNID spam links being added to the Rod Beckstrom page? Neither is registered to Rod Beckstrom but rather link to the spammer's Facebook page.
Thank you again. Intersys ( talk) 05:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, thank you for the tips. Section is removed as per your recommendation. Intersys ( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, actually it did need saying, because someone has repeatedly removed reliably ref'd material on Cuvier's éloge of Lamark (see hist. of Lamarck article). While I'm here thank you for calming Polymorphism (biology) down; your slightest touch has a magical effect... Macdonald-ross ( talk) 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearly you are familar with my images as reflected by your comments here: [ [7]] I am relatively new to this media and still learning the ropes. I am slowly gaining an appreciation for the nuances of this unique culture and appropriate behaviors which are not clear cut and often acquired through trial and error. I appreciate your scrubbing some of my images, eliminating white space, unnecessary text, etc. As images get deleted, I seem to be referred to various WP articles justifying the actions. However, in other instances the reasons are not as clear. My user name was created by Fred Bauder [ [8]], not by me. It is evident that this seems to offend many editors as they cite the usage of my user name as blatant self promotion. This seems to be somewhat of a conflicting message: should I use my real name as a user name or not? One of the other points of contention is the use of my name in the file name and this is cited this as a reason under WP:PROMOTION to delete my images. I fully understand the desire to eliminate links and references to youtube or any other website and have complied with this on subsequent uploaded images. However, I have poured over these articles and no where can I find any prohibition against using your name in the file name. Yet this appears to be a major sticking point. I am quite amazed that other physicians uploaded images (of which you are aware) continue to be posted with hyperlinks to their personal websites with no action by you to remove them. Yet my uploaded images are quite rapidly removed even when posted with no links. Can you help me to understand while a file name identifying my user name is more offensive than a link and why/where this is not permitted? Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response. With all due respect. Otto Placik ( talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for that last question. I've read the SPA link. Thanks. Otto Placik ( talk) 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others people's !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [9]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. As I am posting this message to several people's talk pages, please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this, here, rather than on this page. Thanks. Yilloslime T C 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I replied on my talk page and on the other main page. Cheers SF007 ( talk) 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain why links to Encyclopaedia Iranica fail WP:ELNO? I was a bit perplexed by your reverts. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I respect your revert but im curious why I cannot change quotes. It is common edit etiquette to edit quotes with inproper grammar with brackets inserting text that was not said so the reader better understands the statement. Is this just for Jimmys page? I see it like this on wikipedia everywhere and in newspapers. What rule did I break? Ivtv ( talk) 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok sorry. I thought that Jimmy was being incorrect with grammar. Thank you for the clarification and prompt response Ivtv ( talk) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
hey - I reviewed change and while I absolutely know where you're coming from, it looked like this link provided a depth of info on artifacts that the main nps site (focused on visitors details) did not provide and AFAICT, not easily reachable from the main nps site. So I reverted in good faith. If you still disagree, lets take it to the talk page. On a related note, I saw your Hudson River School article and interestingly, thought that a different branch from that link was actually one of the best links in that list. I ripped a whole bunch of them out. Anyway, thanks for helping clean out some of the weeds. dm ( talk) 14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
What is your sense ? 76.16.183.158 ( talk) 09:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there is disagreement about your comment;
“ | Regardless of the nature of this page, the effect is that editors who wanted to impede promotional paid editing have been exhausted by the fact that there is no policy to prevent it, other than Jimbo's words (with the normal objection that Jimbo is not different from anyone else). Given the lack of policy, and the hypothetical philanthropist who might pay editors to write excellent articles, it has been easy to deflect any argument from those who want a barrier erected against paid promotion. | ” |
at WT:Paid editing. I'm loathe to put words in your mouth and I'm equally uneasy about others doing so for you. Would you be willing to revisit and expand a bit so misinterpreting your view is less likely? -- Banjeboi 18:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonas Kroon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Kroon. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama 頭 07:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Cybercobra (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouraging remarks about my changes to Evolution as theory and fact. - dcljr ( talk) 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, thanks for the advice on the RfC. I was in the process of moving this past weekend, which took more of my time than expected. I now have internet back up and running at home. I am not sure withdrawing the RfC will help much of anything, although I can appreciate the sentiment you express. Hopefully additional eyeballs on the issue will help all concerned. Thanks, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You say that you are unsure of what I meant by "However, the
infinite monkey theorem applies to the hundreds of millions of years involved in evolutionary changes." Allow me to explain.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a very unlikely event can occur if enough chances for it to happen are allowed. Millions of years allows events that are less likely, to happen. The previous sentences in the paragraph are statements of the alleged unlikeliness of evolutionary changes. Therefore, the infinite monkey theorem bears upon those statements.
If this is still unclear, please say. I hope to reword the sentence so it is clear.
I will admit I did enjoy the irony of it being a theory involving monkeys, applied to the controversy about evolution :) But I would not have added it if it was not also directly relevant.
Anarchangel (
talk)
09:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately if I were to stop editing talk pages, I wouldn't be able to communicate with others as I am with you now. Even if you mean article talk pages, I think communicating on those is very valuable and helps to prevent or better solve disputes that may occur within the edit summaries of an article. Now, if you're asking me to stop editing others' comments on talk pages: I'm not doing that, I'm refactoring them, as WP:RTP says refactoring is NOT editing, it's minor. Now that aside: I am actually willing to stop doing this for a period of time while people have a discussion. After all, arguing like this gets depressing and I like taking time off while people collect their thoughts. The problem here is that no discussion seems to be happening: telling someone to simply stop editing isn't constructive. I have simply asked what is violating policy. The rule pointed out was misinterpreted and I pointed out the policy page which contradicts this. What period of time do you think I should volunteer for here? A week or something would be reasonable, I think, for people to apply to make the necessary changes/clarifies on the WP pages so they can properly explain how I'm being disruptive. The previous block was about redirects, not refactoring, so threatening to reinstate a previous block which was over a separate issue is something I don't understand. Tyciol ( talk) 17:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hi there. I couldn't answer sooner because I've been busy on RL. I thought of replacing the redirect with a stub on the company, but I looked at their imdb page and it appears that they are a young company that has only made a few documentaries. Also, I saw no mentions of them on magazines about films, and I didn't see any indication that any of their documentaries has become famous or make a remarkable addition to the field of documentaries or any other sort of remarkable achievement. This probably means that don't have enough notability to even create a stub. They also do documentaries on request (I imagine that they get paid for doing fluff jobs for artists)
I edited the documentaries page to remove the self redirect [1], and I saw that the article not only has been prodded for notability [2], which means that the article will be deleted in 5 days if the prod is not contested, but the that the creator and only contributor to the page has been blocked for "creating non-notable pages", see User talk:Hashmi, Usman, so I assume that the page will most probably be deleted.
That means that the redirect will be orphaned on a few days. Unfortunately, it seems that according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects, and the speedu templates available, you can only speedy vandalism redirects, nonsense redirects, or redirects resulting from a page move. Since the problem with this one is notability, then it *has* to be nominated on WP:TFD (altought, if it's orphaned, maybe you can get away with using {{ db-g6}} or with giving a good reason with {{ db-reason}})
Since this user is well-known on WP:RFD, I would just go and nominate it directly. If you don't know how to do it, then tell me and I will do it for you. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear John, to avoid cluttering up the talk page, I put my response here:
Referencing is fine. For example in the case of
Augustin Louis Cauchy a reference would demonstrate he spent his life trying convert people to Catholicism. Also
Gregor Mendel is a no-brainer as he was both a scientist and a Catholic Abbot....a reference would bear this out. In the case of someone like
Enrico Fermi a reference would confirm that he was a nominal Catholic of the type
that only turned up for weddings and funerals. I do not see a problem here.
Bletchley (
talk)
12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Your concerns are well voiced and will hopefully elicit the appropriate response. My cheap shots were aimed at another. A great deal of effort went into obtaining the copy-right on that image; their suggestion that it was random or slapped up and that we were that dim witted at the time of the articles inception was taken personally. I suggest you allow the discussion to lay dormant a bit. I've added my last bit of tongue and cheek commentary. If there is no further dialog; consensus is in your favor. Then edit as you see fit.-- JimmyButler ( talk) 15:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You shouldn't censor variances in models of evolution just because of your own POV, beliefs, or what ever. Information and facts presented in a logical way should be available to the general public. If you have a problem with that, you should have created a talk page rather then start an edit war. Sfvace ( talk) 03:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, note taken. Leandro GFC Dutra ( talk) 11:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reformulation of the lead in genetic drift. Maybe obvious to you, but I saw the need without being able to fulfil it. -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for your comments about Thehelpfulbot, I'll explain the answer to each of your questions:
Hope this helps,
The Helpful One 19:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This i.p. address is the i.p. address for a high school. I myself attend it, and have logged on on these computers a few times. If it is possible, and you know how, and you have the authority, I'd suggest blocking it, as the few people in this small High school that I know do constructive edits, all have an account. I would say something needs to be done, because almost all the edits have been vandalism. Alan16 talk 12:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox Scientist#Images are still messed up. 129.15.131.185 ( talk) 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
{{
editprotected}}
.
Johnuniq (
talk)
00:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)If only it had an output of 425 megawatts - wouldn't that be nice! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. What was the problem with this reference? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, as it turned out, I had to rewrite most of this article to get some kind of consistency. The main change was to move from adaptation solely as a product of evolution, to the more important idea of adaptation as a process.
I think it's now well past Start Class, so when you go there next time you might have a think about reclassifying it. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the article needs your attention. 91.98.184.50 ( talk) 14:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, in response to this, may I link you to Category talk:Dichotomies#What is dichotomy anyway? You may be kind enough to reply there. -- KYPark ( talk) 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know that FES School has been redirected to FES Matriculation School (which has had it's speedy removed and since been prodded). Also, a7 doesn't apply to schools so in future please don't nom schools under that criteria. Cheers - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 12:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq,
I see you have deleted the links I posted on The Cube, The Doors of Perception and Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer with the comment "Spamlink". I don't understand what you mean by that, because all these links have educational value and are non-commercially.
Regards -- Controle2 ( talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Johnuniq, for fixing those broken links for me!
I'm curious--does Wikipedia run any sort of link checking software to find and fix broken links automatically? 69.251.164.54 ( talk) 06:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't click on your link until now. You said that "I have finished fixing them" but it seems you only reduced the number of broken links from around 50 to 17. I have no idea why the others remained behind, but thought you ought to know. 69.251.164.54 ( talk) 07:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I misunderstood. I thought you meant you didn't bother to note the corrections of the dead links on all of the pages where they existed, that you just changed the links automatically without the changes registering in the history of all those pages or something. My mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.164.54 ( talk) 08:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You worded that is not-something [3]. Do you rely want to talk about it? If so please feel free to open the talk page on it. Perhaps you can define your objection Right now its hardly to replay to you in more detailed way. I think you will praise this as best atempt to wikilowe. 24.15.127.200 ( talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comments are appreciated! Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Why have you so quickly deemed all my entries to be reverted on site?
After the posting about 'conflict' of interest on my discussion page I understand that I shouldn't keep linking to IBISWorld everytime I write an economic/industry entry so I will refrain from doing this anymore unless it is crucial to the entry.
Other editors have been encouraging me to continue going on with this task of adding economic and industry style entries based on proper sources.
The "lollies" I am writing are from legitimate encyclopedic sources that add weight to the article. Can you please outline why the posts are deemed as inappropriate?
I changed the user name because I was advised by an editor to keep posting but from a less promotional name.
I will also remove most of the links to IBISWorld from my old posts as well. ( IndustryProj ( talk) 13:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
re [4]: a) added verbatim structured ancestral population from source (source added), b) wikilinked to best explanation c) fixed obvious mispeling. I believe obvious but its always OK to ask. 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 04:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#thinktalk.com
Much appreciated.
I did preserve the other link at Sparks's page on the talk page in case some interested editor decides it really should be there and brings it into compliance with wp:EL, and re-adds it. - sinneed ( talk) 02:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Without seeking to offend any of the editors involved in the decision to remove references to spiritoftheages.com, the comments - including that site has "[n]o encyclopedic purpose for ...[Wikipedia] readers" - seems inaccurate and the action to remove links based upon such comments removes links for readers interested in that artists and artwork accessible on the various links. In making that comment, I would note that spiritoftheages.com is clearly under continuous development - I have noted regular revisions to the site with many of the more recent updates involving the inclusion of considerable material derived from original sources (inclusive of details around publishing, illustrations, the artists and the text related to the illustrations). Some of that information has directly contributed to Wikipedia articles. Further, in a number of cases, the link site (spiritoftheages.com) has highly detailed information of research value that does not otherwise appear to be available on the web - examples that spring to mind are the emerging practice on the site to accompany images with associated text (as is the case in Vernon Hill's illustrations to Ballads Weird and Wonderful), Holbein's illustrations to The Praise of Folly (Moriae Encomium) [in that example, the illustrations are shown with both French and English translations of Erasmus' text], illustrations shown from Der Weiss Kunig (where extracts of translated text from the medieval German is shown on occasions), Der Todten-Tantz (where German and English text is shown with the associated image) and Michaud's The History of the Crusades (where Dore's illustrations are shown with Michaud's associated text). I do appreciate the comments about spam and the like, but believe this to be a significant resource that has relevance to Wikipedia users (and rather than go ahead with inserting references again, would appreciate some considered comment about the points I have raised before taking such potentially inflammatory action). Ruderabbit007 ( talk) 09:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There certainly seem to be a lot of assumptions being made by some otherwise well-intentioned editors, including that I am working for spiritoftheages.com and thus, am "obviously ... looking for places fo Wikipedia where ... [I]can inject links to ... [the] site". That response seems overly emotional and loaded with defamatory assumptions that betray a zealotry that is unwarranted in editing - similar to many of the justifications used, including that "the images are postage stamp sized" and the like (obviously the size of the images depends on the screen resolution - and not all users have hi-def screens). For some time, I have been adding information to Wikipedia on various subjects - and I will continue to do so. Ruderabbit007 ( talk) 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason this article was nominated for deletion is because it was vandalized by IP address # 71.36.101.63. Prior to the vandalism, the article was approved by several administrators, with a few minor changes. It was posted for 4 weeks before it was altered by # 71.36.101.63, and during that time there were no complaints. All the deletion related complaints were logged during the interval when the article was vandalized. Thanks so much- Hhtttt ( talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
there is no single current scientific citation on H-O on polygenism either.
Please show what do you have to add to something nobody in science debate and how you want to reach consensus? Is your aim to diverge the description of scientific debate between two somehow valid conception the 'mainstream' RR v ME by staffing it by undigestible nonsenses ? 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 03:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
76.16.176.166 ( talk) 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
re to this:
Hi! Have you read the sources of Celestial Heights before you suggested deleting the article? You said there are no sources to support its land sales is second highest in Hong Kong history. But did you read the source of http://www.robroad.com/data/2006/0719/article_71129_1.htm ? It said "Cheung Kong Holdings to 9.42 billion won huge price "Ho Man Tin plots." This is the highest since 1997, the price of single plots." This shows it is a fact with reliable source. If you don't know too much on Hong Kong buildings, you'd better understand it. But please don't delete it because you (or some of the people) want to delete it. Ricky@36 ( talk) 01:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up; I'll add {{ editprotected}}. Eubulides ( talk) 02:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
My "merge" !vote was in response to claims in the previous AfD that "sourced content would be lost in a deletion". If the sourced content was covered in/merged to other articles, the arguement of "lost content" has no basis and we are free to discuss whether the article has merit to stand on its own, which I do not feel an article about the "controversy" does.
I have offered another option on the AfD. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This article, which had been stable for some time, has attracted the attentions of a newish contributor, whose edits are costing me much time and trouble. So I'm asking for some help and/or advice. The main problem, as I see it, is that he doesn't understand enough to appreciate that his contributions are a) not improvements, and b) disruptive. (He is not, as far as I can see, being deliberately disruptive.) This is an article which is on the evol biol slate, and I am not anxious to walk away from it, but it does illustrate the irony that well-meaning but ignorant editing can do more damage than outright vandalism. I have tried to explain on talk page, but he goes on and on. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had both open at once, I must have chosen the wrong window. However, I'd think personally that the XfD would cover both, so I don't think it is a big problem. Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. No one who read my posts said anything near what ThaddeusB said to me, so, it was worth trying to clear up; but once he continued to show he was not reading anyone's posts, as others pointed out to him, there was nothing to do.
Still, I'm human and appreciate that other editors, such as yourself and Hesperian, and most of the editors at the AfD, and a number on the BAG board, saw that my comments were intended to start a needed community discussion to improve wikipedia by preventing similar events from occurring.
There were low level programming mistakes that should not have occurred. A group that has the right to authorize bots should bear some responsibility for the actions and inactions of bot owners-such as a bot owner who is as unresponsive to errors as Martin was (for months). It's my opinion that this could improve the way bots are used on wikipeida: having someone be responsible for monitoring them, for owners responding to errors, for stopping bots with the most basic programming errors. If I wrote software or an algorithm like this, I'd lose my job. If this group doesn't want responsibility, they should lose the right to authorize bots. Again, my opinion.
Thanks. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 06:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your comments at Jimbo's talk page, and thought I'd swing by here rather than contribute to the signal / noise over there - hope you don't mind :-) - you raised the possibility that a 'superadmin' is a necessary / desirable role, and I wondered if you'd considered whether or not that would apply to (for example) the german, french etc. wikipedias who don't have such a chap? - regardless, I think the point is interesting, but ultimately not hugely relevant to the specific discussion over there which by my reading is more about a specific block and discussion than the more general abstract point? Nice to 'meet' you anywhoo, and see you around :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 11:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"There may be a tendency for factions of admins to form" I thought that was the primary organising principle on ANI :) Guettarda ( talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks very much for cleaning up the spammed links to the watch site. I took a break after reporting and blocking all the SPAs, and came back to find that you'd removed the links, saving me a whole bunch of additional time. I appreciate it. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello - and thanks for the edit
Is there a way to prevent WP:UNID spam links being added to the Rod Beckstrom page? Neither is registered to Rod Beckstrom but rather link to the spammer's Facebook page.
Thank you again. Intersys ( talk) 05:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, thank you for the tips. Section is removed as per your recommendation. Intersys ( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, actually it did need saying, because someone has repeatedly removed reliably ref'd material on Cuvier's éloge of Lamark (see hist. of Lamarck article). While I'm here thank you for calming Polymorphism (biology) down; your slightest touch has a magical effect... Macdonald-ross ( talk) 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearly you are familar with my images as reflected by your comments here: [ [7]] I am relatively new to this media and still learning the ropes. I am slowly gaining an appreciation for the nuances of this unique culture and appropriate behaviors which are not clear cut and often acquired through trial and error. I appreciate your scrubbing some of my images, eliminating white space, unnecessary text, etc. As images get deleted, I seem to be referred to various WP articles justifying the actions. However, in other instances the reasons are not as clear. My user name was created by Fred Bauder [ [8]], not by me. It is evident that this seems to offend many editors as they cite the usage of my user name as blatant self promotion. This seems to be somewhat of a conflicting message: should I use my real name as a user name or not? One of the other points of contention is the use of my name in the file name and this is cited this as a reason under WP:PROMOTION to delete my images. I fully understand the desire to eliminate links and references to youtube or any other website and have complied with this on subsequent uploaded images. However, I have poured over these articles and no where can I find any prohibition against using your name in the file name. Yet this appears to be a major sticking point. I am quite amazed that other physicians uploaded images (of which you are aware) continue to be posted with hyperlinks to their personal websites with no action by you to remove them. Yet my uploaded images are quite rapidly removed even when posted with no links. Can you help me to understand while a file name identifying my user name is more offensive than a link and why/where this is not permitted? Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response. With all due respect. Otto Placik ( talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for that last question. I've read the SPA link. Thanks. Otto Placik ( talk) 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others people's !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [9]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. As I am posting this message to several people's talk pages, please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this, here, rather than on this page. Thanks. Yilloslime T C 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I replied on my talk page and on the other main page. Cheers SF007 ( talk) 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain why links to Encyclopaedia Iranica fail WP:ELNO? I was a bit perplexed by your reverts. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I respect your revert but im curious why I cannot change quotes. It is common edit etiquette to edit quotes with inproper grammar with brackets inserting text that was not said so the reader better understands the statement. Is this just for Jimmys page? I see it like this on wikipedia everywhere and in newspapers. What rule did I break? Ivtv ( talk) 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok sorry. I thought that Jimmy was being incorrect with grammar. Thank you for the clarification and prompt response Ivtv ( talk) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
hey - I reviewed change and while I absolutely know where you're coming from, it looked like this link provided a depth of info on artifacts that the main nps site (focused on visitors details) did not provide and AFAICT, not easily reachable from the main nps site. So I reverted in good faith. If you still disagree, lets take it to the talk page. On a related note, I saw your Hudson River School article and interestingly, thought that a different branch from that link was actually one of the best links in that list. I ripped a whole bunch of them out. Anyway, thanks for helping clean out some of the weeds. dm ( talk) 14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
What is your sense ? 76.16.183.158 ( talk) 09:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there is disagreement about your comment;
“ | Regardless of the nature of this page, the effect is that editors who wanted to impede promotional paid editing have been exhausted by the fact that there is no policy to prevent it, other than Jimbo's words (with the normal objection that Jimbo is not different from anyone else). Given the lack of policy, and the hypothetical philanthropist who might pay editors to write excellent articles, it has been easy to deflect any argument from those who want a barrier erected against paid promotion. | ” |
at WT:Paid editing. I'm loathe to put words in your mouth and I'm equally uneasy about others doing so for you. Would you be willing to revisit and expand a bit so misinterpreting your view is less likely? -- Banjeboi 18:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonas Kroon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Kroon. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama 頭 07:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Cybercobra (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouraging remarks about my changes to Evolution as theory and fact. - dcljr ( talk) 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, thanks for the advice on the RfC. I was in the process of moving this past weekend, which took more of my time than expected. I now have internet back up and running at home. I am not sure withdrawing the RfC will help much of anything, although I can appreciate the sentiment you express. Hopefully additional eyeballs on the issue will help all concerned. Thanks, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You say that you are unsure of what I meant by "However, the
infinite monkey theorem applies to the hundreds of millions of years involved in evolutionary changes." Allow me to explain.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a very unlikely event can occur if enough chances for it to happen are allowed. Millions of years allows events that are less likely, to happen. The previous sentences in the paragraph are statements of the alleged unlikeliness of evolutionary changes. Therefore, the infinite monkey theorem bears upon those statements.
If this is still unclear, please say. I hope to reword the sentence so it is clear.
I will admit I did enjoy the irony of it being a theory involving monkeys, applied to the controversy about evolution :) But I would not have added it if it was not also directly relevant.
Anarchangel (
talk)
09:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately if I were to stop editing talk pages, I wouldn't be able to communicate with others as I am with you now. Even if you mean article talk pages, I think communicating on those is very valuable and helps to prevent or better solve disputes that may occur within the edit summaries of an article. Now, if you're asking me to stop editing others' comments on talk pages: I'm not doing that, I'm refactoring them, as WP:RTP says refactoring is NOT editing, it's minor. Now that aside: I am actually willing to stop doing this for a period of time while people have a discussion. After all, arguing like this gets depressing and I like taking time off while people collect their thoughts. The problem here is that no discussion seems to be happening: telling someone to simply stop editing isn't constructive. I have simply asked what is violating policy. The rule pointed out was misinterpreted and I pointed out the policy page which contradicts this. What period of time do you think I should volunteer for here? A week or something would be reasonable, I think, for people to apply to make the necessary changes/clarifies on the WP pages so they can properly explain how I'm being disruptive. The previous block was about redirects, not refactoring, so threatening to reinstate a previous block which was over a separate issue is something I don't understand. Tyciol ( talk) 17:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)