Welcome!
Hello, Midnight Gardener, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
KillerChihuahua
?!?
00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It isn't as hard as it looks if you do it in multiple steps. The first step is to put <ref> and </ref> around the link and see if that doesn't screw anything up. If there are no references on the page you may need to add a <references/> tag in the references section (which tells the software where to put all the references) Once that's set up, choose which template applies such as Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite book(if you use web when you mean news or something like that no one is going to care). Paste that in between the ref markers and fill out the details.
That's the basic idea. The only thing to remember is that if you want to cite something multiple times the first time it shows up instead of writing <ref> put <ref name="some convenent name for the source"> This will tell the software on that page to treat anything of the form <nowiki><ref name="some convenent name for the source"/> (note the slash after the quotation mark) as additional links to the text. One minor note, you need the quotation marks here if there are any spaces in your name for the source. Also, don't be afraid to use preview, and if you mess up a few times, no big deal. Just revert it to a simple [url here] form. JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
D'oy, I didn't think to look for the New Scientist comments in the Screenings section. Reckon it's worth leaving the comments about the movie in the Reviews section, and moving the comments about the Q&A to the Screenings section? Sockatume ( talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he's doing the same thing at greenhouse gases and maybe some of the other climate change pages. Guettarda ( talk) 20:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
He has a long history of this. That RFC, by the way, is also a good example of how not to conduct an RFC. Guettarda ( talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Angry Christian. Thank you for reverting my recent removal of the word alleged in the Expelled article so the article better conforms to the talk page. Could you show me where on the talk page it is discussed. As you know, that talk page is very long. Thanks. Have a great day. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll add my own comments to that thread. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. It appears that the removal of the word 'controversial' from the article was User:Ashmoo. Cheers.-- Lepeu1999 ( talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, AC. I'm glad that some people can remain level-headed on emotionally charged issues. The article is in dire need of peer review. It will be very much improved if it opened with a description of what the movie claims before moving into the controversy and criticisms (and I believe you've suggested this). I might hold off on my major suggestions until after the review. Cheers. Judicata ( talk) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked. Nightscream ( talk) 04:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What the fuck are you talking about? Angry Christian ( talk) 11:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You're an admin right, so I'll ask you again. What the fuck are you talking about? Would you care to shed some light on "This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked."
"Final warning"? What? Where was the first warning? Secondly, what the fuck did I say on the talk page that was uncivil in the first place? Do you always go around making threats to ban people without giving any details as to why? WTF? How long have you been an admin? What did I say on the talk page that lead you to put this warning on my talk page? Finally, if you think being expelled from the Expelled article is going to hurt my feelings you're sadly mistaken. It's actually kind of funny. Angry Christian ( talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Midnight Gardener ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
because I have yet to know why I was threatened in the first place. Holy cow man.
Decline reason:
Templated messages aren't threats. Even if you have been threatened, however, that is not a reason to unblock you. — Yamla ( talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
And why am I being blocked from ALL of wikipedia? WTF? How long have you been an admin? Seriously. Are you new? Angry Christian ( talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I get it. We get banned if we say "fuck" on our talk page? Angry Christian ( talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Weird that an admin who has never given me any warning drops by and out of the blue gives me my last warning and has yet to provide any evidence that I had been uncivil. I love Wikipedia! The fact I have been advocating things in the article that this admin clearly does not agree with makes my banning even more interesting. I guess this makes me and NCDave blood brothers or something! Too funny. Angry Christian ( talk) 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Merzul, glad you have a sense of humor too. There is actually a policy that admins are supposed to follow when a block might be controversial. Obviosuly the admin in question and I have not seen eye to eye on the talk page of an extreemly controversial subject. According to that policy he should have mentioned his intent to block me the admin notification board to let the other admins know prior top blocking me. He did not do that. He also is obligated to provide me with some specifics which he did not do. And "Final warning" suggests a previous warning had been given. I would not be shocked if all my comments here get deleted and he uses WP:Soapbox as an excuse. Oh well, what are you gonna do. The only thing that bothers me is I cannot post anything on any of the admin boards to get a question or two answered and I cannot post on NCDave's talk page (he would appreciate the irony here I think). He also deleted my comments on the talk page yet he leaves dozens of actual viscous attacks done by others there, I attacked no one so this selective enforcement makes me smile too. I suspect the "batman" comment sent him over the top (I'm Batman). But we have one guy claiming he's a nuclear scientists and therefore evolution is wrong, another guy (who this Night dude is demonstrably sympathetic too) who claims he's a doctor and has proven evolution to be false, so I figured letting the cat out of the bag and admitting I'm batman was just as relevant (shhh mum's the word, my wife would kill me if she knew I was a crime fighter). The talk page is obviously not a place for people to claim they can/have proven evolution to be wrong nor is it a good place to appeal to one's own authority. But, in Nightguy's eyes I guess you can claim you're a nuclear scientist but claiming to be batman somehow violates some policy.
To be clear, I'm seeing this as idiotically funny and not ranting against admins or Wikipedia. Anyhow, here's to appreciating the occassional absurdity in life! Angry Christian ( talk) 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't pour gasoline on the fire. Let's sort this out. It sounds like a mistake or overreaction to me.-- Filll ( talk) 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Note I have no intention of pouring gasoline or creating a ruckus. This is funny to me, certainly not worth warring over. I *do* think that as an admin Nightguy should follow policy in the future when he threatens to block someone and when he does in fact block someone to follow the rules but I'm not going to lead that charge. Whether he admits it or not he knows full well where he fucked up. Angry Christian ( talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey I just noticed a formal discussion is going on regarding/reviewing my "blockage" here I have to say I'm a bit stunned and flattered. Apparently some folks here like me, or at least see me as a useful editor. Angry Christian ( talk) 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just had to comment on this, the comment of you and NCDave being "blood brothers" was priceless. To think of you two in the same situation is great! Especially since the two of you never get along. Anyways... cheers!
Saksjn (
talk)
01:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not his job title, that's an honorific title. There's a difference I suggest people there learn. The reason I remove it is because the others that have honorific titles like Dawkins don't have them used at the article, giving Marks special treatment. If you're going to use honorific titles for one there you need to use them for all that have them in order to avoid favoring one side of the debate. Odd nature ( talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to call me dishonest, at least have the basic courtesy addressing what I said. If you want to call me dishonest, please provide evidence. Personal attacks are not tolerable in any case, but I would be far less bothered if you actually connected your accusations with what I said. Please support or strike your attacks. Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 06:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I play a Fender Stratocastor squire on electric. And a Takamini on acoustic. Do you play as well? Saksjn ( talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Stumbled across your page after reading the article about expelled. Just idle curiosity mostly. I don't want to out you or anything if you don't want to be, but the comments on the criticism of atheism talk page made me wonder about your user name. In what sense should I interpret your user name "Angry Christian"? are you an adherent of Christianity who is incensed, angry ABOUT Christianity, or perhaps your name is Christian, or something completely different altogether. I am thinking about it too much, probably. Your comments caught me off guard is all; not in a bad way though.-- 66.102.196.36 ( talk) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Infonation101 (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey man, I've been learning a lot about WP style editing since I've been on, and I'm trying to go back and make up for all the careless and stupid mistakes I made when I first came on to WP. I think it was my first week I posted a harassment template on your page for stuff that was going on in the Expelled discussion. Sorry bout that. Hope everything treats you well. Cheers. Infonation101 ( talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to remember when our path crossed and now I get it. That was then, this is now. I try not to take too much of this very seriously. I've been around a little longer and I'm still clumsy as hell so don't sweat it. Cheers! Angry Christian ( talk) 04:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Bensteinian Rhapsody Hrafn Talk Stalk 04:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That is hilarious. There are a few like these sprouting up all over the place. PZ had a few good ones linked at his blog the other day. AtBC had a bunch of good ones too. Angry Christian ( talk) 13:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
...until the Ben Stein bobbles start to turn up for sale: Ben Stein Autographed 8 X 10. Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of me but no, I want a bobble head. Something that is really dumb. I'll set up an Ebay alert. Angry Christian ( talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)
Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
...the reduced levels of protection on both Ben Stein and Expelled implemented today of all days? Odd, I must say. I would have figured one of the more prominent pro-science editors would have re-requested page protection by now, and I don't feel quite BOLD enough to do it on my own without some consensus. -- Aunt Entropy ( talk) 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, it's sunday evening and I just got your note. I see it's been addressed. Thanks for the heads up! Angry Christian ( talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Without it we're just begging for edit wars (more edit wars that is). It's hard enough to have people with accounts to work together. At least we're not seeing the volume of drive-by's that we'd be seeing with anon-IPs. Angry Christian ( talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
After the discussion on ANI, there was a clear consensus to unblock you and I have implemented it. Cheers! henrik• talk 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I read the discussion and reasons why. How soon should I be able to edit again, currently I still can't. Should I sign out and sign back in or? Cheers! Angry Christian ( talk) 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeehaw I'm back in business, thanks! Angry Christian ( talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Christian, please accept my apology for not making my warnings more clear, a point that was raised on the Noticeboard. I thought that three warnings on the article Talk Page and a fourth on some of the editors personal Talk Pages was sufficient, but one or two of the others on the noticeboard pointed out that it's not easier for everyone to see them on an article Talk Page, especially one with such heavy traffic as the Expelled one. Nonetheless, even if I erred in this regard, you didn't have to leaves such a profane message on my Talk Page. I'm sorry I did not exercise as much care as I should have, but if in the future you feel that I'm not fulfilling my duties as I should, just let me know. And thanks for participating in the discussion I initiated on the Expelled Talk Page. :-)
Nightscream I appreciate the note, I'm not worried about any of this - as far as I'm concerned it's done and over. Cheers Angry Christian ( talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nightscream ( talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
angrychristian wrote "You'd do well to join the dicussion on the talk page. To me you seem to be playing a game with us and I'd love to be proven wrong." Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by plaing a game with 'us'. (Who is 'us'?) Anyway, I couldn't help but notice the very slanted pov in the Expelled article. If you take the time to review the articles relating to other documentaries such as Sicko by Michael Moore or An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, you'll notice VERY different and more neutral pov. Anyway, I don't play games, but try to balance very slanted pov. Veritas399 ( talk) 13:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)veritas399
If you read the review of Sicko and Inc Truth and compare those to the reviews for Expellefd you'll notice a huge difference there. Most reviewers are saying Ben Stein makes Michael Moore look fair and balanced. But the Expelled article could use some improvement. Angry Christian ( talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
How can I request a peer review for an article?
Angry Christian (
talk)
00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Nomination procedure
Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
To add a nomination:
{{subst:PR}}
to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.~~~~
) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour.Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Angry Christian (
talk)
00:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
Your outstanding comments on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed have been important in the development of what will be another great WP article. InfoNation101 | talk | 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
Seriously dude, thanks for keeping your cool. Good job in there.
InfoNation101 |
talk |
02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks man. Angry Christian ( talk) 02:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
To you, does it seem the talk page is getting really off topic for Expelled? I've been trying to follow what's going on, but more additions pop up then I can read. BTW, you're doing well keeping everything cool in there. Thanks for putting in that effort. InfoNation101 | talk | 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The Wedge Document, I believe, was created by people that are very unsure of their own faith so they feel that they have to push it on other people. The United States was not founded upon Christian ideals. The Forefathers were Deists who believed in Natural right, but the IDists would deny that to the end so I don't find a reason to tell anyone. Now I feel like starting a forum to bring together all the religious people that disagree with the whole ID movement. I think that there has been too much regression, and not enough mutual understanding. That really needs to be brought back before any progress can be made on the front. Question about your addition from unanimous to largely. It looks like it was changed back almost immediately, but from your stats 89% criticize the movie. To me it seems that your edit was more appropriate, but I don't figure it would do any good to bring it up on the talk page. InfoNation101 | talk | 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You and I are on the same page with this stuff for sure. "unanimous to largely" I don't think I made that edit, I saw two others making/reverting that one. The 89% thing (now 90%) on the talk page is in relation to the number of negative reviews collection at Rotten Tomatoes [1] When I wrote it there was 29 reviews and today there are 30 so I updated the numbers on the talk page. So far 90% are clearly negative (27 our ot 30). Angry Christian ( talk) 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what I did. Someone reverted back to your edit and I saw your name. Just didn't put two and two together. Well, I'll dive in and see if there is anything I can do. It's almost to the point that we should make a FAQ page for Expelled, and require that everyone who hasn't been there before read it before they post. Maybe that would help out with so many redundant posts. Cheers. InfoNation101 | talk | 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm headed out the door, and only had time to skim the start of what you said. The only useful thing I have to add is that I'm a he :) - Guettarda is the name of my favourite genus of trees (I'm a plant geek). But I will be back this evening. Guettarda ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Becomes something of an addiction, doesn't it? The ones you mention are Trachycarpus fortunei, Washingtonia filifera, Butia capitata, Chamaerops, Sabal minor, Brahea armata and, I think Moriche Palm is the Brazilian Wine Palm though some call B. capitata by that common name (which is the inherent problem with using them as titles here). Almost all could use aerial root (if any), trunk, crown, entire plant, petiole, leaf, flower and fruit pics. Are you ordering seed or collecting it? And are you familiar with the Point of Inquiry podcast? Take it easy. Mmcknight4 ( talk) 23:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I can relate - if I had the space, I would be growing palms. Instead I'm forced to put together virtual collections :) Guettarda ( talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I never answered your question because I don't know what zone I'm in (whatever central OK is) and kept forgetting to try to figure it out (Sabal palmettos can survive the winter here apparently, though I don't know how they would tolerate the kind of ice storms we had last year). I only grow houseplants (and aquarium plants, lots of those) - no yard. Guettarda ( talk) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda you are probably in zone 7a, look here Midnight Gardener ( talk) 22:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Holy Shit You Are Awesome Award | ||
The Holy Shit You Are Awesome Award is presented to Angry Christian for his amazing talk page comments, his openness to discussion, and commitment to improving articles. Merzul ( talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
I really hope you keep your friendly editing style and awesome spontaneity as you continue on Wikipedia. You see, there are two completely orthogonal aspects to a person's editing of Wikipedia:
Most editors move along these axes, and don't fall into one set type, but very roughly we have these stereotypical categories:
E-mail me. •Jim62sch• dissera! 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes, Merzul ( talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, Merzul. Angry Christian ( talk) 02:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my impertinence and overreaction as well. When I first saw the contentious debate on the page I thought it would be interesting to join in, but after second thought I realized the possible ramification of being embroided into this kind of scuffle. =P Happy editing! Chimeric Glider ( talk) 18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and no worries at all. Yeah I've experienced root canals that more less painful than that talk page at times :-) Angry Christian ( talk) 14:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to get heated when it comes to controversial issues. If your comment really was sincere and not sarcasm, I apologize for reacting the way I did. And I realize it made me look like a huge prick. Thanks Joe3472 ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Angry Christian! I was wondering if you could give us the story behind your username--if there is one. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're interested, see Wikipedia:Changing username. Guettarda ( talk) 14:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Midnight Gardener? Hmm... not bad... they should put you on some username suggestions panel. Angry Christian was quite nice to begin with. This one sounds less uhm angry ;) Still, very nice, congratulations, Merzul ( talk) 22:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ben Stien's Liver would have been rather amusing. Sweet new name! Saksjn ( talk) 01:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Wise choice. The old name caused some confusion, at least to me. Nick Graves ( talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't realised that I'd earned this nickname. Am I really that loquacious? I wonder if it is possible to have "Talk" as an official nick -- would certainly confuse the natives (so I suspect not). ;| Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is wikipedia devoted to debunking "Expelled" and doing so without a mere mention of the numerous sardonic and anti-religious statements made by proponents for the Theory of Evolution? Tricked into the interviews or not, Dawkins and his like-thinkers spoke from the heart; attacking the belief in God, which was held by "childish" people such as the likes of Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo. For me personally, I have no problem accepting "Natural Selection", but the challenge has always been who was the "Uncaused Cause"? If not who, but "proteins on crystals"? Fine, but who provided the crystals and the proteins? Wotring3 ( talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I have the same doubts, which leads us back to the "Ultimate" question that theologians, philosophers and scientists have wrestled with since we started writing on animals skins or chiseling on cave walls, "How in the world, or - more precisely - in the universe did we get here?" The issue of ID is not about proselytizing "Right-winged" Christians in public schools. It's about considering all possibilities concerning our existence and purpose. If we merely are born, live and die, then why in the world should we allow defective humans to exist? Why not kill our weak and old as the rest of the animal kingdom does? Why not pursue Eugenics as Sanger suggested or more horrifically as Hitler did? It sure would help with the overpopulation issues and the planet's limited resources such as food, water and oil. My hypothesis is that a "Creator" imbued me with a set of "Moral Absolutes". The same Creator that Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration of Independence and the same one that Newton and Galileo and others articulated. Absent the restrictions placed on us by the Creator to not steal, not kill, not covet, etc why else would should I abhor cleansing the species of undesirables? Natural Selection? AMEN! Wotring3 ( talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's not go debating evolution vs. ID here, we won't get any where. I don't think any of us are really going to be convinced one way or another. Thankfully most of us have "agreed to disagree" and moved on to writing articles. Saksjn ( talk) 01:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Moved a most interesting perspective to here Midnight Gardener ( talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
Even though we constantly fight, your comments keep this place light hearted! Saksjn ( talk) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you sir. But..I don't think you and I fight, constantly or otherwise, we simply had one brief skirmish was back in early Expelled days :-) Midnight Gardener ( talk) 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope toe=toe -- toe the line. Sorry :) Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Damn! Midnight Gardener ( talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Richard Weikart you wrote: "PT has sliced and diced his book far more thoroughly than the Alvos review." Who is PT? Paper45tee ( talk) 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
PT = Pandas Thumb = www.pandasthumb.org I'll look around and see if I still have it book marked but they have written about his book more than once. Midnight Gardener ( talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
From Darwin to Hitler, or not? From Darwin to Hitler, or not? Part II From Darwin to Hitler, or Not? Part 3 Darwin, Marx and Bad Scholarship Just to name a few Midnight Gardener ( talk) 04:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been over a year since you last heard from me. I realized recently I said something stupid to you. You asked me about my guitars at one point and i made a very very dumb response. Back then I had only been playing for about a year and knew almost nothing about guitars. I read that on my talk page and laughed. Here's the educated response. I play a squire telecastor through a fender frontman 212r amp. I use a boss super overdrive and a DOD stereo flanger pedal. On the acoustic side I play a Jasmine (sub brand of Takamine). Since then I've been also picked up bass and the Irish tin whistle. Anyways, greetings from an old wikifriend. How have you been lately? Saksjn ( talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What version of the 452 is that? I want to use it in the CZ 452 article (it's a great little pic), but I don't know where to add it in. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Midnight Gardener, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
KillerChihuahua
?!?
00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It isn't as hard as it looks if you do it in multiple steps. The first step is to put <ref> and </ref> around the link and see if that doesn't screw anything up. If there are no references on the page you may need to add a <references/> tag in the references section (which tells the software where to put all the references) Once that's set up, choose which template applies such as Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite book(if you use web when you mean news or something like that no one is going to care). Paste that in between the ref markers and fill out the details.
That's the basic idea. The only thing to remember is that if you want to cite something multiple times the first time it shows up instead of writing <ref> put <ref name="some convenent name for the source"> This will tell the software on that page to treat anything of the form <nowiki><ref name="some convenent name for the source"/> (note the slash after the quotation mark) as additional links to the text. One minor note, you need the quotation marks here if there are any spaces in your name for the source. Also, don't be afraid to use preview, and if you mess up a few times, no big deal. Just revert it to a simple [url here] form. JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
D'oy, I didn't think to look for the New Scientist comments in the Screenings section. Reckon it's worth leaving the comments about the movie in the Reviews section, and moving the comments about the Q&A to the Screenings section? Sockatume ( talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he's doing the same thing at greenhouse gases and maybe some of the other climate change pages. Guettarda ( talk) 20:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
He has a long history of this. That RFC, by the way, is also a good example of how not to conduct an RFC. Guettarda ( talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Angry Christian. Thank you for reverting my recent removal of the word alleged in the Expelled article so the article better conforms to the talk page. Could you show me where on the talk page it is discussed. As you know, that talk page is very long. Thanks. Have a great day. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll add my own comments to that thread. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. It appears that the removal of the word 'controversial' from the article was User:Ashmoo. Cheers.-- Lepeu1999 ( talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, AC. I'm glad that some people can remain level-headed on emotionally charged issues. The article is in dire need of peer review. It will be very much improved if it opened with a description of what the movie claims before moving into the controversy and criticisms (and I believe you've suggested this). I might hold off on my major suggestions until after the review. Cheers. Judicata ( talk) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked. Nightscream ( talk) 04:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What the fuck are you talking about? Angry Christian ( talk) 11:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You're an admin right, so I'll ask you again. What the fuck are you talking about? Would you care to shed some light on "This is my final warning to you and to all others participating on the Expelled Talk Page. The next time you disrupt the page by violating WP: Civility, discussing things not related to improving the article, reversing deletion of such comments, etc, you will be blocked."
"Final warning"? What? Where was the first warning? Secondly, what the fuck did I say on the talk page that was uncivil in the first place? Do you always go around making threats to ban people without giving any details as to why? WTF? How long have you been an admin? What did I say on the talk page that lead you to put this warning on my talk page? Finally, if you think being expelled from the Expelled article is going to hurt my feelings you're sadly mistaken. It's actually kind of funny. Angry Christian ( talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Midnight Gardener ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
because I have yet to know why I was threatened in the first place. Holy cow man.
Decline reason:
Templated messages aren't threats. Even if you have been threatened, however, that is not a reason to unblock you. — Yamla ( talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
And why am I being blocked from ALL of wikipedia? WTF? How long have you been an admin? Seriously. Are you new? Angry Christian ( talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I get it. We get banned if we say "fuck" on our talk page? Angry Christian ( talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Weird that an admin who has never given me any warning drops by and out of the blue gives me my last warning and has yet to provide any evidence that I had been uncivil. I love Wikipedia! The fact I have been advocating things in the article that this admin clearly does not agree with makes my banning even more interesting. I guess this makes me and NCDave blood brothers or something! Too funny. Angry Christian ( talk) 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Merzul, glad you have a sense of humor too. There is actually a policy that admins are supposed to follow when a block might be controversial. Obviosuly the admin in question and I have not seen eye to eye on the talk page of an extreemly controversial subject. According to that policy he should have mentioned his intent to block me the admin notification board to let the other admins know prior top blocking me. He did not do that. He also is obligated to provide me with some specifics which he did not do. And "Final warning" suggests a previous warning had been given. I would not be shocked if all my comments here get deleted and he uses WP:Soapbox as an excuse. Oh well, what are you gonna do. The only thing that bothers me is I cannot post anything on any of the admin boards to get a question or two answered and I cannot post on NCDave's talk page (he would appreciate the irony here I think). He also deleted my comments on the talk page yet he leaves dozens of actual viscous attacks done by others there, I attacked no one so this selective enforcement makes me smile too. I suspect the "batman" comment sent him over the top (I'm Batman). But we have one guy claiming he's a nuclear scientists and therefore evolution is wrong, another guy (who this Night dude is demonstrably sympathetic too) who claims he's a doctor and has proven evolution to be false, so I figured letting the cat out of the bag and admitting I'm batman was just as relevant (shhh mum's the word, my wife would kill me if she knew I was a crime fighter). The talk page is obviously not a place for people to claim they can/have proven evolution to be wrong nor is it a good place to appeal to one's own authority. But, in Nightguy's eyes I guess you can claim you're a nuclear scientist but claiming to be batman somehow violates some policy.
To be clear, I'm seeing this as idiotically funny and not ranting against admins or Wikipedia. Anyhow, here's to appreciating the occassional absurdity in life! Angry Christian ( talk) 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't pour gasoline on the fire. Let's sort this out. It sounds like a mistake or overreaction to me.-- Filll ( talk) 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Note I have no intention of pouring gasoline or creating a ruckus. This is funny to me, certainly not worth warring over. I *do* think that as an admin Nightguy should follow policy in the future when he threatens to block someone and when he does in fact block someone to follow the rules but I'm not going to lead that charge. Whether he admits it or not he knows full well where he fucked up. Angry Christian ( talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey I just noticed a formal discussion is going on regarding/reviewing my "blockage" here I have to say I'm a bit stunned and flattered. Apparently some folks here like me, or at least see me as a useful editor. Angry Christian ( talk) 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just had to comment on this, the comment of you and NCDave being "blood brothers" was priceless. To think of you two in the same situation is great! Especially since the two of you never get along. Anyways... cheers!
Saksjn (
talk)
01:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not his job title, that's an honorific title. There's a difference I suggest people there learn. The reason I remove it is because the others that have honorific titles like Dawkins don't have them used at the article, giving Marks special treatment. If you're going to use honorific titles for one there you need to use them for all that have them in order to avoid favoring one side of the debate. Odd nature ( talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to call me dishonest, at least have the basic courtesy addressing what I said. If you want to call me dishonest, please provide evidence. Personal attacks are not tolerable in any case, but I would be far less bothered if you actually connected your accusations with what I said. Please support or strike your attacks. Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 06:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I play a Fender Stratocastor squire on electric. And a Takamini on acoustic. Do you play as well? Saksjn ( talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Stumbled across your page after reading the article about expelled. Just idle curiosity mostly. I don't want to out you or anything if you don't want to be, but the comments on the criticism of atheism talk page made me wonder about your user name. In what sense should I interpret your user name "Angry Christian"? are you an adherent of Christianity who is incensed, angry ABOUT Christianity, or perhaps your name is Christian, or something completely different altogether. I am thinking about it too much, probably. Your comments caught me off guard is all; not in a bad way though.-- 66.102.196.36 ( talk) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Infonation101 (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey man, I've been learning a lot about WP style editing since I've been on, and I'm trying to go back and make up for all the careless and stupid mistakes I made when I first came on to WP. I think it was my first week I posted a harassment template on your page for stuff that was going on in the Expelled discussion. Sorry bout that. Hope everything treats you well. Cheers. Infonation101 ( talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to remember when our path crossed and now I get it. That was then, this is now. I try not to take too much of this very seriously. I've been around a little longer and I'm still clumsy as hell so don't sweat it. Cheers! Angry Christian ( talk) 04:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Bensteinian Rhapsody Hrafn Talk Stalk 04:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That is hilarious. There are a few like these sprouting up all over the place. PZ had a few good ones linked at his blog the other day. AtBC had a bunch of good ones too. Angry Christian ( talk) 13:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
...until the Ben Stein bobbles start to turn up for sale: Ben Stein Autographed 8 X 10. Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of me but no, I want a bobble head. Something that is really dumb. I'll set up an Ebay alert. Angry Christian ( talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)
Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
...the reduced levels of protection on both Ben Stein and Expelled implemented today of all days? Odd, I must say. I would have figured one of the more prominent pro-science editors would have re-requested page protection by now, and I don't feel quite BOLD enough to do it on my own without some consensus. -- Aunt Entropy ( talk) 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, it's sunday evening and I just got your note. I see it's been addressed. Thanks for the heads up! Angry Christian ( talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Without it we're just begging for edit wars (more edit wars that is). It's hard enough to have people with accounts to work together. At least we're not seeing the volume of drive-by's that we'd be seeing with anon-IPs. Angry Christian ( talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
After the discussion on ANI, there was a clear consensus to unblock you and I have implemented it. Cheers! henrik• talk 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I read the discussion and reasons why. How soon should I be able to edit again, currently I still can't. Should I sign out and sign back in or? Cheers! Angry Christian ( talk) 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeehaw I'm back in business, thanks! Angry Christian ( talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Christian, please accept my apology for not making my warnings more clear, a point that was raised on the Noticeboard. I thought that three warnings on the article Talk Page and a fourth on some of the editors personal Talk Pages was sufficient, but one or two of the others on the noticeboard pointed out that it's not easier for everyone to see them on an article Talk Page, especially one with such heavy traffic as the Expelled one. Nonetheless, even if I erred in this regard, you didn't have to leaves such a profane message on my Talk Page. I'm sorry I did not exercise as much care as I should have, but if in the future you feel that I'm not fulfilling my duties as I should, just let me know. And thanks for participating in the discussion I initiated on the Expelled Talk Page. :-)
Nightscream I appreciate the note, I'm not worried about any of this - as far as I'm concerned it's done and over. Cheers Angry Christian ( talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nightscream ( talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
angrychristian wrote "You'd do well to join the dicussion on the talk page. To me you seem to be playing a game with us and I'd love to be proven wrong." Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by plaing a game with 'us'. (Who is 'us'?) Anyway, I couldn't help but notice the very slanted pov in the Expelled article. If you take the time to review the articles relating to other documentaries such as Sicko by Michael Moore or An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, you'll notice VERY different and more neutral pov. Anyway, I don't play games, but try to balance very slanted pov. Veritas399 ( talk) 13:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)veritas399
If you read the review of Sicko and Inc Truth and compare those to the reviews for Expellefd you'll notice a huge difference there. Most reviewers are saying Ben Stein makes Michael Moore look fair and balanced. But the Expelled article could use some improvement. Angry Christian ( talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
How can I request a peer review for an article?
Angry Christian (
talk)
00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Nomination procedure
Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
To add a nomination:
{{subst:PR}}
to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.~~~~
) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour.Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Angry Christian (
talk)
00:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
Your outstanding comments on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed have been important in the development of what will be another great WP article. InfoNation101 | talk | 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
Seriously dude, thanks for keeping your cool. Good job in there.
InfoNation101 |
talk |
02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks man. Angry Christian ( talk) 02:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
To you, does it seem the talk page is getting really off topic for Expelled? I've been trying to follow what's going on, but more additions pop up then I can read. BTW, you're doing well keeping everything cool in there. Thanks for putting in that effort. InfoNation101 | talk | 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The Wedge Document, I believe, was created by people that are very unsure of their own faith so they feel that they have to push it on other people. The United States was not founded upon Christian ideals. The Forefathers were Deists who believed in Natural right, but the IDists would deny that to the end so I don't find a reason to tell anyone. Now I feel like starting a forum to bring together all the religious people that disagree with the whole ID movement. I think that there has been too much regression, and not enough mutual understanding. That really needs to be brought back before any progress can be made on the front. Question about your addition from unanimous to largely. It looks like it was changed back almost immediately, but from your stats 89% criticize the movie. To me it seems that your edit was more appropriate, but I don't figure it would do any good to bring it up on the talk page. InfoNation101 | talk | 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You and I are on the same page with this stuff for sure. "unanimous to largely" I don't think I made that edit, I saw two others making/reverting that one. The 89% thing (now 90%) on the talk page is in relation to the number of negative reviews collection at Rotten Tomatoes [1] When I wrote it there was 29 reviews and today there are 30 so I updated the numbers on the talk page. So far 90% are clearly negative (27 our ot 30). Angry Christian ( talk) 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what I did. Someone reverted back to your edit and I saw your name. Just didn't put two and two together. Well, I'll dive in and see if there is anything I can do. It's almost to the point that we should make a FAQ page for Expelled, and require that everyone who hasn't been there before read it before they post. Maybe that would help out with so many redundant posts. Cheers. InfoNation101 | talk | 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm headed out the door, and only had time to skim the start of what you said. The only useful thing I have to add is that I'm a he :) - Guettarda is the name of my favourite genus of trees (I'm a plant geek). But I will be back this evening. Guettarda ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Becomes something of an addiction, doesn't it? The ones you mention are Trachycarpus fortunei, Washingtonia filifera, Butia capitata, Chamaerops, Sabal minor, Brahea armata and, I think Moriche Palm is the Brazilian Wine Palm though some call B. capitata by that common name (which is the inherent problem with using them as titles here). Almost all could use aerial root (if any), trunk, crown, entire plant, petiole, leaf, flower and fruit pics. Are you ordering seed or collecting it? And are you familiar with the Point of Inquiry podcast? Take it easy. Mmcknight4 ( talk) 23:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I can relate - if I had the space, I would be growing palms. Instead I'm forced to put together virtual collections :) Guettarda ( talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I never answered your question because I don't know what zone I'm in (whatever central OK is) and kept forgetting to try to figure it out (Sabal palmettos can survive the winter here apparently, though I don't know how they would tolerate the kind of ice storms we had last year). I only grow houseplants (and aquarium plants, lots of those) - no yard. Guettarda ( talk) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda you are probably in zone 7a, look here Midnight Gardener ( talk) 22:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Holy Shit You Are Awesome Award | ||
The Holy Shit You Are Awesome Award is presented to Angry Christian for his amazing talk page comments, his openness to discussion, and commitment to improving articles. Merzul ( talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
I really hope you keep your friendly editing style and awesome spontaneity as you continue on Wikipedia. You see, there are two completely orthogonal aspects to a person's editing of Wikipedia:
Most editors move along these axes, and don't fall into one set type, but very roughly we have these stereotypical categories:
E-mail me. •Jim62sch• dissera! 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes, Merzul ( talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, Merzul. Angry Christian ( talk) 02:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my impertinence and overreaction as well. When I first saw the contentious debate on the page I thought it would be interesting to join in, but after second thought I realized the possible ramification of being embroided into this kind of scuffle. =P Happy editing! Chimeric Glider ( talk) 18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and no worries at all. Yeah I've experienced root canals that more less painful than that talk page at times :-) Angry Christian ( talk) 14:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to get heated when it comes to controversial issues. If your comment really was sincere and not sarcasm, I apologize for reacting the way I did. And I realize it made me look like a huge prick. Thanks Joe3472 ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Angry Christian! I was wondering if you could give us the story behind your username--if there is one. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're interested, see Wikipedia:Changing username. Guettarda ( talk) 14:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Midnight Gardener? Hmm... not bad... they should put you on some username suggestions panel. Angry Christian was quite nice to begin with. This one sounds less uhm angry ;) Still, very nice, congratulations, Merzul ( talk) 22:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ben Stien's Liver would have been rather amusing. Sweet new name! Saksjn ( talk) 01:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Wise choice. The old name caused some confusion, at least to me. Nick Graves ( talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't realised that I'd earned this nickname. Am I really that loquacious? I wonder if it is possible to have "Talk" as an official nick -- would certainly confuse the natives (so I suspect not). ;| Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is wikipedia devoted to debunking "Expelled" and doing so without a mere mention of the numerous sardonic and anti-religious statements made by proponents for the Theory of Evolution? Tricked into the interviews or not, Dawkins and his like-thinkers spoke from the heart; attacking the belief in God, which was held by "childish" people such as the likes of Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo. For me personally, I have no problem accepting "Natural Selection", but the challenge has always been who was the "Uncaused Cause"? If not who, but "proteins on crystals"? Fine, but who provided the crystals and the proteins? Wotring3 ( talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I have the same doubts, which leads us back to the "Ultimate" question that theologians, philosophers and scientists have wrestled with since we started writing on animals skins or chiseling on cave walls, "How in the world, or - more precisely - in the universe did we get here?" The issue of ID is not about proselytizing "Right-winged" Christians in public schools. It's about considering all possibilities concerning our existence and purpose. If we merely are born, live and die, then why in the world should we allow defective humans to exist? Why not kill our weak and old as the rest of the animal kingdom does? Why not pursue Eugenics as Sanger suggested or more horrifically as Hitler did? It sure would help with the overpopulation issues and the planet's limited resources such as food, water and oil. My hypothesis is that a "Creator" imbued me with a set of "Moral Absolutes". The same Creator that Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration of Independence and the same one that Newton and Galileo and others articulated. Absent the restrictions placed on us by the Creator to not steal, not kill, not covet, etc why else would should I abhor cleansing the species of undesirables? Natural Selection? AMEN! Wotring3 ( talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's not go debating evolution vs. ID here, we won't get any where. I don't think any of us are really going to be convinced one way or another. Thankfully most of us have "agreed to disagree" and moved on to writing articles. Saksjn ( talk) 01:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Moved a most interesting perspective to here Midnight Gardener ( talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
Even though we constantly fight, your comments keep this place light hearted! Saksjn ( talk) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you sir. But..I don't think you and I fight, constantly or otherwise, we simply had one brief skirmish was back in early Expelled days :-) Midnight Gardener ( talk) 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope toe=toe -- toe the line. Sorry :) Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Damn! Midnight Gardener ( talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Richard Weikart you wrote: "PT has sliced and diced his book far more thoroughly than the Alvos review." Who is PT? Paper45tee ( talk) 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
PT = Pandas Thumb = www.pandasthumb.org I'll look around and see if I still have it book marked but they have written about his book more than once. Midnight Gardener ( talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
From Darwin to Hitler, or not? From Darwin to Hitler, or not? Part II From Darwin to Hitler, or Not? Part 3 Darwin, Marx and Bad Scholarship Just to name a few Midnight Gardener ( talk) 04:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been over a year since you last heard from me. I realized recently I said something stupid to you. You asked me about my guitars at one point and i made a very very dumb response. Back then I had only been playing for about a year and knew almost nothing about guitars. I read that on my talk page and laughed. Here's the educated response. I play a squire telecastor through a fender frontman 212r amp. I use a boss super overdrive and a DOD stereo flanger pedal. On the acoustic side I play a Jasmine (sub brand of Takamine). Since then I've been also picked up bass and the Irish tin whistle. Anyways, greetings from an old wikifriend. How have you been lately? Saksjn ( talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What version of the 452 is that? I want to use it in the CZ 452 article (it's a great little pic), but I don't know where to add it in. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)