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. |
Hi Orange, I will try to get back when I have an identity on WP, planning to do so. Until now I've left comments here and there signing with IP I saw you had a bad day checking for the original Hoyle quotation. This was from some archived discussion group, objections - evolution, or something. I don't have a firm reference at hand. Here's what I think, what I remember (I'm a physicist). Hoyle might have written it in a book, rather than an article. The book was coauthred, but I don't remember the name of the other author (Indian sounding). Whether or not the quote is there in that book, I think I know what he was referring to. Hoyle (almost certainly) firmly believed in evolution through natural selection, he understood that mechanism, he never questioned it, or he was just uninterested in it. What he was actually concerned about was the origin of life. He thought that life must have emerged somewhere in the universe, not on Earth specifically. Wherever it originated, it has travelled everywhere through comets and the likes. His motivation for coming up with this hypothesis was that life is very improbable, too improbable to arise in many planets independently at (more or less) the same time. But the Universe is very vast. So, by extending the "pool" for life to begin to the entire universe, such probability might become sensible. In summary, he argued, life has originated only once somewhere sometime in a vast universe (he probably still believed vaster than most do), and then was spread all around. This is also known as panspermia. Hoyle is using a kind of entropic principle he had used before for an outstanding discovery in Physics regarding how carbon atoms arose in stars. To paraphrase, he thought that a functional boeing can actually come around by chance if tornadoes are happening all over a vast universe at the same time. To conclude, his boeing argument was an argument in favor of panspermia, in relation to the origin of life, and had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, nor evolution by means of natural selection. It goes without saying that recent findings that suggest life exists in meteorites, compatibly with Hoyle, are dismissed as false by creationists, who cite Hoyle's objections out of conetxt, but then refuse to embrace his authority in regard to the origin of life (and the related findings possibly confirming one prediction of his). In other words, Hoyle passes from being a total genius in their view when he proposes the boeing argument, to a pure idiot just a few lines later when he advocates panspermia. -- 209.150.240.231 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand shingles are not contageous per se, but can produce chicken pox in those without resistance, which itself may produce shingles sometime after the chicken pox regimen. Thus: Shingles may cause chickent pox in those without resistance to chicken pox, and the resulting exposure to chick pox may then cause shingles. Do I understand correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.52.227 ( talk) 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I copied the section over verbatim and decided to leave the tag in, just in case somebody objected & moved it straight back into the article (so it didn't get deleted in that case). Now that the removal to talk seems to have been accepted, you're probably right that there's no reason to leave the tag. Hrafn42 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an incivil edit comment. Please don't do it. "Inappropriate" would have been enough. Accusing people of vandalism in this way is rarely a good idea - if it really *is* vandalism, report them for it. IMHO it wasn't vandalism William M. Connolley 21:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And both edited and augmented my user page. I realized that it is a place where I can put material that I suppose technically would be Original Research, but was more "I-wuz-there" rather than research. There are a number of other such areas where I simply never published.
Anyway, thanks for the useful suggestions.
Howard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcberkowitz ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you alive. So what's next on the list? Possibly Petey? I saw a Discovery Channel show on the Permian. Interesting. I hate insects, and I'm pretty certain I would have hated the Permian. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your charge that I have "barely contributed to the project" here. Ronnotel 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello OrangeMarlin, Thanks for the warm welcome and concerns. The ole ticker is fine. I have missed you guys! I think Meme has the perspective of a psychological scientist instead of a biological scientist, hence the emphasis of memes. Making a statement that evolution is not a change in inherited traits is naive. I have been trying to be Wikipolite and show Good faith-and be diplomatic. I love your blunt nature it plays well-Good cop/Bad cop Hee,hee. I have also been following Tim's lead as I really don't want to read his long diatribes and logical assertions and non sequiturs. Jeez. You have always been a quick read of editors so your analysis is probably correct-sock puppet. I have a keen interest in epigenetics, hybridization, and evodevo and apparently Meme shares a similar interest, so that caught my eye. We will see how the worm squirms-I mean screw turns. Thanks for the interest my friend. Regards GetAgrippa 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a great amount for referencing Chronic myeloid leukemia. I am in a position I never expected to be, that wikipedia information would be vital to me for my own health, and being a wikipedian, after seeing other leukaemia sites, I find myself coming back to the wikipedia article on CML over and over. If you develop the article more, you'll be helping out a fellow wikipedian you are acquainted with. All the best and keep up the good work. Tell me when Petey is ready and I'll give you a review to thank you. AshLin 15:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
How can WP:CON work if editors revert good-faith edits without even attempting to engage on, or even read, the talkpage?
I ran into precisely this problem before with FM on the "is Michael Behe a 'Catholic Activist'" edit-war. If you remember, even after I reverted with a link to the talk-section on the subject, you were the only one to bother actually making any comment. My opinion is that, unless you're willing to keep at least half an eye on the talkpage, you have no business reverting anything other than the most obvious vandalism/OR/POV-pushing on an article, and that's irrespective of whether you're "one of the good guys" or not. Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
OM: I simply can't get FM to even listen to what I am saying, either on the talkpage or in the edit summaries. He might have good reasons for his viewpoint, but it's rather hard to see what it is when all I get in response are bald assertions with reverts: "it's a good example" & "it's not OR because there's a source" (never mind that the sole source is the document under discussion, therefore a primary source, and unsuitable source for discussion of itself). I'm trying to be "one of the good guys" about this, but if I can't even get a response out of him, I've got little choice but to escalate the issue to some higher authority. If you, or anybody you know, has any influence with him, could you please get him to at least explain why everything I've written on the talkpage on this subject is wrong. :( Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's almost never helpful to template a user in good standing with whom you are currently engaged in a content dispute. For the record, you issued this warning for this edit, right?
Regarding that comment, I redacted it, but you may want to contemplate on several things you said at that RfA. I was concerned about things you said in this comment where you called this notification "barely civil" and said that it "probably violates WP:CANVAS", both of which is untrue and I suppose you do know that. Then you also said that "the applicant failed my subtle test of maturity", which I found a bit assuming. — [ aldebaer ] 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Thanks to your postings here, I will be modifying my input at the RfA to strongest possible oppose. Good job.-- Filll 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
My RFA | ||
Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for your comments on Mike's RFA, OM. I promised not to pester you about your !vote ('cause I hate it when people do that (especially when it's a neutral of all things!) and your points are no less valid than anyone else's). So no pestering. :) This message isn't about that. You said "Personally, I wish all admins had the experience that Firs has, with Firs' sense of humor and Firs' broad knowledge. All IMHO (or not so humble)." Oh man, OrangeMarlin. You are going to get me into so much trouble. It is a really nice thing to say, but I've got so many fuck ups to my name that they cannot even be counted. Someone is bound to point this out on the RFA page.
In other news, I've just got some shiny books from the library which will help us with Petey. Thanks, as always, for your patience. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to invite you to my myspace page again to refute my polonium halos blog. /nothingwilldie I'm not trying to cause trouble. This is simply meant to be invitation to a friendly debate. EMSPhydeaux 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact tag is completely appropriate (an assertion is made with no reference to back it up) and the Coral Ridge reference does not bear out the use of "books and DVDs" because (A) there's no ID books there and (B) there's only one video about ID there that's available in both DVD and VHS. Jinxmchue 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to de-escalate as soon as I saw your reaction to my response at my RfA but obviously I didn't want to compound the situation by what could have been seen as more canvassing. While what I said was in good faith, I can understand how it may have been interpreted otherwise and I'd like to apologize. Hopefully we can put this behind us with no hard feelings? Ronnotel 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I protected it because of an edit war, in response to this request at WP:RFPP. I'm just starting to help there, so I've been getting a few protections wrong lately, but I don't think this is one of them (I'll ask an RFPP regular anyway). One POV editor is all it takes for an edit war. I had a few facts: around three people were reverting Jinx's edits, and a few arguments were already underway on the talk page. · AndonicO Talk 01:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've just been popping around a bit and after a few of your comments on the NOR discussion page, I though that I should probably say that some of your comments there appear to reflect the exact opposite of what you were trying to say on Badgerpatrol's page. I would ask that (even though it's extremely long and convoluted) you at least give us over there the same courtesy that you expected from Badgerpatrol. Many of us (far more than 3 or 4) have been working long and hard in an attempt to make the policy better, not weaken it. To paraphrase what you said to Badgerpatrol, if you can willingly participate in helping to make our proposals better or otherwise more coherent, fine. But please don't pop in occasionally to impugn the integrity of the perticipants just because you either don't understand what we are trying to do (since it is so convoluted), or because you sense that what we are attempting is a weakneing of a crucial policy. Many of us fail to see how a definition of primary, secondary, etc. has anything to do with what OR is, or how moving (not deleting) the problemmatic definitions someplace else would weaken the policy. Any constructive participation in the discussions would be greatly appreciated, but please, don't just come in and criticize the hard work many people have done with false statements just because the issue is so convoluted it takes a while to digess. Thanks. wbfergus Talk 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In Lucky Luc's case; his second captaincy tenure - lasted only 1 game (his last home game before retirement). It was a goodwill gesture by Mattias Norstrom (who resumed the captaincy the next game). GoodDay 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
here....cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You should stop asserting that I claim to be an "Owner" of the Homeopathy article. I have explained in detail how nothing I am doing is anywhere near exhibiting ownership of the article yet you continue to refer to me as the "owner" of the article. This is counter productive and it needs to stop. Secondly, You need to read the talk page prior to making anymore revisions. Ignoring the discussion on the talk page and persisting in making controversial disagreed upon edits does not help anything either. The information that you keep moving from the Clinical trials section was actually written for that section. It fits nowhere else and without it, The clinical trials section starts off by talking about "later" trials without ever elaborating on earlier trials. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I hate to agree, but it does look like Wikidudeman has a WP:OWN problem in this case.-- Filll 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm done with trying to AFG with WDM. I wonder if he sees why his RfA went down in flames? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's clear this up right now. According to WP:OWN, examples of Ownership are:
Please give me an example where I have done a single one of these things. The VAST majority of the edits made to that article are undisputed by me. Please review the history of the article as proof of this. Long strings of edits made by other editors are undisputed by me. Only a small fraction of the edits made are disputed in which case I generally revet to the older version, make a change that I think might solve the problem, and then wait to see if it's changed again. If it is then I bring it to the talk page for discussion. I don't engage in edit wars. Any comments I make on talk pages of other users are not made to discourage them from editing. I simply make comments (like the one made here) to try to help solve a dispute. Never have I attempted in any way to discourage any editor from editing the article. WP:OWN gives further examples of comments usually made by editors exhibiting ownership of articles:
Please give me one example of where I have made comments such as this or even similar to this concerning the Homeopathy article. The fact is, I do not exhibit ownership of the article. I follow policy to the tee when editing the article and I am simply proactive. If I dispute an edit made by an editor I will quickly try to resolve the matter following WP:CCC. As explained above, If an editor makes an edit that I disagree with, I generally revert to the previous version, make changes that I think might solve the problem, and then wait to see if another edit is made by the same editor of the same kind. If it is then I will bring the discussion to the talk page so that we can determine what the problem is and solve it. This is how Wikipedia works, This is not ownership in any sense of the word. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S., I expect those accusing me of exhibiting ownership of this article to respond to all of my points and explain in detail how I am exhibiting ownership. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm done commenting here. I've tried to get you and OrangeMarlin to help improve the article when It was being rewritten, I've tried to get you and OrangeMarlin to help with the article after it was rewritten, and now I try to have a rational discussion with the two of you but all I get in return are insults and accusations. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOS#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms The genus and species name should be initialized. Taxa above genus are not. Hardyplants 05:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Orangemarlin,
Why are we saving space? I think we have normally included as much information as possible in the references in case people wanted to look up the references themselves. A Digital Object Identifier is obviously superior to a normal web-link (because it's permanent), but not everyone will know what a DOI is. I've only been leaving a field blank if there's just no information for that field. Do you think I should switch to the "minimal information is better" style? Suggestions welcome, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a note to inform you that the article on Homeopathy has been listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment for review to see if it still meets the Good Article Criteria. Editors are encouraged to comment on this nomination and reach consensus on the specific concerns raised by reviewers. Tim Vickers 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Orangemarlin/Archives 2 | |
I would like to thank you for your participation in my successful RfA, which passed with a tally of (44/10/5) [1]. Whether you supported, opposed or were neutral in my RfA, I appreciate your participation and I hope that we can continue to work together to build a stronger and better Wikipedia. | |
Regards, nat t a n g 04:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
Hi there. I have to warn you OM that if you continue to push for a highly critical approach, rather than a neutral assessment of homeopathy in this article you may find your arguments dismissed as coming from a POV-warrior. I know you have very strong feeling on this, but we can't take this stance throughout the entire article. This is entirely legitimate in the section on scientific assessment, but this article also needs to give a neutral and accurate account of the history and methods of this pseudoscience. Indeed, condemning the practice with its own words is a very effective approach! All the best Tim Vickers 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I've finished editing the article, any comments on my changes? Tim Vickers 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Creation Museum#Recent reversions -- I think some of the recent reversions have been performed under misapprehension (caused in part by misleading difs). Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi OM. I share your concern about the username to a certain degree. I don't know if you decoded the number - it spells Adolf again on a standard phone keyboard (I didn't get it at first as we never used the number/letter duality in Germany until the advent of the cell phone and text messages). -- Stephan Schulz 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
glad i'm not the only one. i was getting a complex. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you can find some other unfathomable points to make. I've got better things to do then put up with your unwarranted snippery. Neil ム 21:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Orangemarlin:
I'll bite. What is a gyroomfpov?
Thanks, Wanderer57 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the best version to go back to. Thanks. Richard001 05:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just curious. Saw on your page that you felt 'evolutionist' was derogatory.
Do you feel the same way about the terms: biologist, geologist, physicist, captialist, marxist, archaeologist, paleontologist, etc?
I really do not understand the differences. Also what term would you give to describe a person who is knowledgeable, or works or studies evolution? Now I would describe a person who studies or a specialist in the branch of biology dealing with animals as a zoologist. Is that derogatory? How would you describe a person who studies or a specialist in the branch of biology dealing with evolution? Imbrella 17:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homeopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors-- Sm565 07:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi OM,
Thanks for your continued diligence watching Dinosaur. Over the past few days it's been unprotected, it's been vandalized by IPs a dozen times a day. I noticed your name pop up quite a bit in the recent history of the article, reverting vandalism. I truly don't understand why anyone bothers unprotecting this article; there are never any good IP edits to it, and the unprotecting admin never bothers checking back to see how the unprotection is going, leading to a lot of work for other people. Luckily, the bots caught a lot of it. Thanks again for your help, OM.
(I just noticed the block notice above. I hope everything is alright). Firsfron of Ronchester 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My dear Wikipedian Orangemarlin,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. I will be sure to prove to you that I am capabale of handling Admin duties. Thank you and good day.
This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.
This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.
I appreciate your comments regarding the blank, blank and blankety blank block that was given me over 2RR (yup, 2RR, and I thought I was reverting an edit-warrior, so I thought I was even exempt from 3RR). Anyways, keep up the good work. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ready to swab the deck! | ||
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
Just letting you know that I reverted your revert of my revert of vandalism - Twinkle has some lag, so I presume that you went to revert the vandalism but got my revert instead. Cheers, Daniel 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
By my count you're on 3 reverts, so be careful (god knows you've had enough "fun" with blocks recently). I won't revert back to "assertion", but to assert means to maintain a cause or a claim by words or measures - which is precisely what ID amounts to; it's technically a more correct word. "Claim" is a loaded term that immediately suggests "this whole thing is bullcrap", and is less neutral. Neil ☎ 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed on one of your reverts you said the article didn't need to be converted to an AD date format because it wasn't about a Christian topic. Actually, CE was originally a Christian term, meaning Christian as well as Common Era, and some Christian sects such as Jehova's Witnesses use it in their publications. kwami 19:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism? That's a laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.225.246 ( talk) 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not appropriate. I have removed your edit. Whig 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"Well, there are other ways to have ProfG removed from the project, that don't rely upon the minority opinions of two admins." Can I trust you are referring to arbitration? -- B 00:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, [3]. Mercury 12:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel( Talk) 15:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a username and frequently log in, I must not have been earlier. Thanks and keep up the good work. 67.93.205.78 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that you've been reverting as vandalism the page User talk:Laorv when the user removes the warning. As per user page policies:
Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.
Just thought you should know! :-) -- Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I knew you could delete or archive bogus warnings or those that don't assume good faith. he's been blocked, so i'm all right. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on some real-life information you posted (no need to repeat it here, this is the internet, hotheads & loons abound, etc) I thought you might like this blog. It's a shame it will never count as a reliable source. Yours... Sheffield Steel talk stalk 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You and I are of similar minds on the User:Profg unblock. But I'd like to ask you to back off from the strident tone. I'm as mad as you about the disregard for constructive editors that this move shows, but by descending to his level you're only reinforcing the (mis)perception that Profg was unfairly singled out. Raymond Arritt 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that Profg has retired. I doubt if he'll be missed. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about it. About the block, I made an error. I want to apologize. I have made an appropiate note in your blocklog. I'll be more careful in the future. Mercury 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It was merged a month back -- SmithBlue is just belatedly bemoaning the fact. Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sm565. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly going to oblige you after speaking like that. It's Cognitive dissonance btw. "My IQ proves that the US Navy recruits the smartest officers" so what's your IQ? Tstrobaugh 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You initiated contact on my talk page, I responded. Can't you have a normal conversation? What is it with you and censorship? Tstrobaugh 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Wuzzat s'possed teh mean? Don' be pointin' fingers at guys widout knowin' du whole situation. Got it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnoff ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Join in when you have time! :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
excuse me! i would never add unsourced information! i am a talmudic authority and i quoted exactly what and where it is stated. dont question me again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.152.2 ( talk) 10:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, I happened upon the Wyoming (schooner) article you created and saw the "That Boat Won't Float" reference that does not appear to meet WP:RS. I have tried to find a reference that meets WP:RS that backs that paragraph up (I agree with the sound research on that page) but can't. Do you have another source possibly before I go and remove that source (and possibly paragraph)? Thanks for your time! Spryde 12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I've been on a knitting bender, making socks for Christmas gifts, then the archiving bot took your post to my talk page archive before I saw it.
Anyway, if there's a program to help lose weight, I haven't found it, but I'm optimistic. When I had my first child, I lost 24 pounds in six days, so I've done it once and can do it again. That was expensive, though. And I had to take a baby boy home with me too. ;-) You could always turn to the myriad 'supplements,' like the ones that use chitin to bind cholesterol or some other such nonsense. (If that really worked, why not just eat lobster shells with a nice sauce and a lot of liquor and be done with it?)
Can't help you with the women, though. OTOH, it _is_ July, and you could always go over to a hospital near you and check out the brand new crop of wide-eyed interns. You know it's July when we have to dust off the "Ventilator Settings and IV Orders In The Real World" class and give it to them every damn morning until it sinks into their skulls. No software to teach them the difference between medical school and reality, and I'm _not_ optimistic about that. I guess I can't have everything.
Seriously, though, the apps/scripts I use most often, besides Butler, for Wiki-stuff (apologies if I've told you about these before):
Okay, I'll shut up now. Email me if you have any questions, so I don't clutter up your talk page. It's time to eat some ice cream. See ya - Krakatoa Katie 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You always catch me when I'm gone for a few days. Suspicious minds would wonder if I'm being watched... ;-)
I was coming to recommend Twinkle, but I see you've already got it. You can take a look at my monobook.js page if you want to see how it can be configured, 'cause I don't have the whole script imported like you do. AzaToth is pretty responsive to questions and bugs, and the Twinkle talk page is lively if help is needed.
I must go knit now. Christmas is coming... so much yarn to buy, so much to knit and so little time. I'll be in and out of here, mainly 'out' with brief bursts of 'in', until I'm sure everything will be completed. See ya – :-) Krakatoa Katie 15:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a way to censor people…it's an excuse to block them and mar their record! Otherwise the comments which are supposedly so horrible would be deleted. I do believe there needs to be a civility policy, but it should be framed in an entirely different manner, from the standpoint of a publisher, not a prosecutor of our own volunteer contributors. Any bad diff is Wikipedia's, and should be treated accordingly. The questions should be, "Could this needlessly harm someone's reputation?", "Does this bring disrepute upon the project?" etc. If your swear too much (or only when you're upset,) someone should refactor it, not treasure and hoard it for future use against you. That they opt for the latter suggests that these are seen not as genuine offenses, but as "slip-ups" in a game of WP:GOTCHA! The only reasons to block contributors in this context is 1) because they force others to clean up after them too often WP:RESPONSIBLE 2) because they're starting fights with other volunteer contributors WP:AGGRESSOR. What strikes me as very dysfunctional is when one editor initiates a hostile conflict in coolly "civil" language, then uses the angry reaction against the victim: an easy system for dishonest and manipulative personalities to game. Proabivouac 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I was reediting that particular statement in Intelligent design per what seemed to be a consensus on the talk page. If you have some disagreement with this change, would you mind bringing it up there so we don't end up arguing via an edit war? -- Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of your comments on this page have been wildly uncivil. Please restrict yourself to commenting on content and not attacking other editors. Viridae Talk 06:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what B said, I had a brief look at his contributions but could not find the source of the argument - that said, numerous people have already confronted him about his attitude, so I don't see the need to pile on. The reason you are being warned is because I came across some extremely offensive behaviour from you on his talk page. As I said, please restrict yourself to commenting on content not editors. Viridae Talk 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Can all concerned just knock it off? Please? It's Friday afternoon. Have a drink (recommend: Sierra Nevada Pale Ale), crank some music (recommend: good old time blues like Howlin' Wolf), and relax. Raymond Arritt 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This is addressed communally to everyone because I know you'll all see it here. If I'm wrong, I humbly apologize. Either way, I realized something tonight ... it isn't enjoyable any more. If you see a photo pop up in a Tech article, you might have found me, but probably not. Take care ... and I honestly mean that. -- B 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, OM...Congrats on getting your own little passage in the Ferrylodge case [4]. It's stunning that even though they cleared the CU, this "evidence" is allowed to remain and B gets off free as a bird. Sigh.... Baegis 18:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This edit was not only very bitey but your edit summary confuses WP:WEASEL (i.e., an attempt to suggest sources without actually citing any) with qualifications necessary for factual accuracy. It's hard to see how the two could be confused: Removing the "Some" from "Some people in Manchester are criminals" is not de-weaseling, it is turning a true statement into a false one. All the edits by 71.254.7.200 that you removed from Fine-tuned universe seem to me to be obviously sensible qualifications of statements that were originally over-general or making unjustified assumptions. PaddyLeahy 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
POV? All I asked for is proper sourcing. I commented on the talk page. What is the deal with calling my edits pov. Turtlescrubber 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As you have above. I am not a troll and don't appreciate being called one. Turtlescrubber 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I find that unacceptable. Turtlescrubber 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on D. James Kennedy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Turtlescrubber 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Any more of this kind of taunting and you face a block. ElinorD (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2007 (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. |
Hi Orange, I will try to get back when I have an identity on WP, planning to do so. Until now I've left comments here and there signing with IP I saw you had a bad day checking for the original Hoyle quotation. This was from some archived discussion group, objections - evolution, or something. I don't have a firm reference at hand. Here's what I think, what I remember (I'm a physicist). Hoyle might have written it in a book, rather than an article. The book was coauthred, but I don't remember the name of the other author (Indian sounding). Whether or not the quote is there in that book, I think I know what he was referring to. Hoyle (almost certainly) firmly believed in evolution through natural selection, he understood that mechanism, he never questioned it, or he was just uninterested in it. What he was actually concerned about was the origin of life. He thought that life must have emerged somewhere in the universe, not on Earth specifically. Wherever it originated, it has travelled everywhere through comets and the likes. His motivation for coming up with this hypothesis was that life is very improbable, too improbable to arise in many planets independently at (more or less) the same time. But the Universe is very vast. So, by extending the "pool" for life to begin to the entire universe, such probability might become sensible. In summary, he argued, life has originated only once somewhere sometime in a vast universe (he probably still believed vaster than most do), and then was spread all around. This is also known as panspermia. Hoyle is using a kind of entropic principle he had used before for an outstanding discovery in Physics regarding how carbon atoms arose in stars. To paraphrase, he thought that a functional boeing can actually come around by chance if tornadoes are happening all over a vast universe at the same time. To conclude, his boeing argument was an argument in favor of panspermia, in relation to the origin of life, and had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, nor evolution by means of natural selection. It goes without saying that recent findings that suggest life exists in meteorites, compatibly with Hoyle, are dismissed as false by creationists, who cite Hoyle's objections out of conetxt, but then refuse to embrace his authority in regard to the origin of life (and the related findings possibly confirming one prediction of his). In other words, Hoyle passes from being a total genius in their view when he proposes the boeing argument, to a pure idiot just a few lines later when he advocates panspermia. -- 209.150.240.231 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand shingles are not contageous per se, but can produce chicken pox in those without resistance, which itself may produce shingles sometime after the chicken pox regimen. Thus: Shingles may cause chickent pox in those without resistance to chicken pox, and the resulting exposure to chick pox may then cause shingles. Do I understand correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.52.227 ( talk) 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I copied the section over verbatim and decided to leave the tag in, just in case somebody objected & moved it straight back into the article (so it didn't get deleted in that case). Now that the removal to talk seems to have been accepted, you're probably right that there's no reason to leave the tag. Hrafn42 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an incivil edit comment. Please don't do it. "Inappropriate" would have been enough. Accusing people of vandalism in this way is rarely a good idea - if it really *is* vandalism, report them for it. IMHO it wasn't vandalism William M. Connolley 21:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And both edited and augmented my user page. I realized that it is a place where I can put material that I suppose technically would be Original Research, but was more "I-wuz-there" rather than research. There are a number of other such areas where I simply never published.
Anyway, thanks for the useful suggestions.
Howard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcberkowitz ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you alive. So what's next on the list? Possibly Petey? I saw a Discovery Channel show on the Permian. Interesting. I hate insects, and I'm pretty certain I would have hated the Permian. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your charge that I have "barely contributed to the project" here. Ronnotel 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello OrangeMarlin, Thanks for the warm welcome and concerns. The ole ticker is fine. I have missed you guys! I think Meme has the perspective of a psychological scientist instead of a biological scientist, hence the emphasis of memes. Making a statement that evolution is not a change in inherited traits is naive. I have been trying to be Wikipolite and show Good faith-and be diplomatic. I love your blunt nature it plays well-Good cop/Bad cop Hee,hee. I have also been following Tim's lead as I really don't want to read his long diatribes and logical assertions and non sequiturs. Jeez. You have always been a quick read of editors so your analysis is probably correct-sock puppet. I have a keen interest in epigenetics, hybridization, and evodevo and apparently Meme shares a similar interest, so that caught my eye. We will see how the worm squirms-I mean screw turns. Thanks for the interest my friend. Regards GetAgrippa 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a great amount for referencing Chronic myeloid leukemia. I am in a position I never expected to be, that wikipedia information would be vital to me for my own health, and being a wikipedian, after seeing other leukaemia sites, I find myself coming back to the wikipedia article on CML over and over. If you develop the article more, you'll be helping out a fellow wikipedian you are acquainted with. All the best and keep up the good work. Tell me when Petey is ready and I'll give you a review to thank you. AshLin 15:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
How can WP:CON work if editors revert good-faith edits without even attempting to engage on, or even read, the talkpage?
I ran into precisely this problem before with FM on the "is Michael Behe a 'Catholic Activist'" edit-war. If you remember, even after I reverted with a link to the talk-section on the subject, you were the only one to bother actually making any comment. My opinion is that, unless you're willing to keep at least half an eye on the talkpage, you have no business reverting anything other than the most obvious vandalism/OR/POV-pushing on an article, and that's irrespective of whether you're "one of the good guys" or not. Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
OM: I simply can't get FM to even listen to what I am saying, either on the talkpage or in the edit summaries. He might have good reasons for his viewpoint, but it's rather hard to see what it is when all I get in response are bald assertions with reverts: "it's a good example" & "it's not OR because there's a source" (never mind that the sole source is the document under discussion, therefore a primary source, and unsuitable source for discussion of itself). I'm trying to be "one of the good guys" about this, but if I can't even get a response out of him, I've got little choice but to escalate the issue to some higher authority. If you, or anybody you know, has any influence with him, could you please get him to at least explain why everything I've written on the talkpage on this subject is wrong. :( Hrafn Talk Stalk 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's almost never helpful to template a user in good standing with whom you are currently engaged in a content dispute. For the record, you issued this warning for this edit, right?
Regarding that comment, I redacted it, but you may want to contemplate on several things you said at that RfA. I was concerned about things you said in this comment where you called this notification "barely civil" and said that it "probably violates WP:CANVAS", both of which is untrue and I suppose you do know that. Then you also said that "the applicant failed my subtle test of maturity", which I found a bit assuming. — [ aldebaer ] 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Thanks to your postings here, I will be modifying my input at the RfA to strongest possible oppose. Good job.-- Filll 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
My RFA | ||
Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for your comments on Mike's RFA, OM. I promised not to pester you about your !vote ('cause I hate it when people do that (especially when it's a neutral of all things!) and your points are no less valid than anyone else's). So no pestering. :) This message isn't about that. You said "Personally, I wish all admins had the experience that Firs has, with Firs' sense of humor and Firs' broad knowledge. All IMHO (or not so humble)." Oh man, OrangeMarlin. You are going to get me into so much trouble. It is a really nice thing to say, but I've got so many fuck ups to my name that they cannot even be counted. Someone is bound to point this out on the RFA page.
In other news, I've just got some shiny books from the library which will help us with Petey. Thanks, as always, for your patience. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to invite you to my myspace page again to refute my polonium halos blog. /nothingwilldie I'm not trying to cause trouble. This is simply meant to be invitation to a friendly debate. EMSPhydeaux 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact tag is completely appropriate (an assertion is made with no reference to back it up) and the Coral Ridge reference does not bear out the use of "books and DVDs" because (A) there's no ID books there and (B) there's only one video about ID there that's available in both DVD and VHS. Jinxmchue 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to de-escalate as soon as I saw your reaction to my response at my RfA but obviously I didn't want to compound the situation by what could have been seen as more canvassing. While what I said was in good faith, I can understand how it may have been interpreted otherwise and I'd like to apologize. Hopefully we can put this behind us with no hard feelings? Ronnotel 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I protected it because of an edit war, in response to this request at WP:RFPP. I'm just starting to help there, so I've been getting a few protections wrong lately, but I don't think this is one of them (I'll ask an RFPP regular anyway). One POV editor is all it takes for an edit war. I had a few facts: around three people were reverting Jinx's edits, and a few arguments were already underway on the talk page. · AndonicO Talk 01:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've just been popping around a bit and after a few of your comments on the NOR discussion page, I though that I should probably say that some of your comments there appear to reflect the exact opposite of what you were trying to say on Badgerpatrol's page. I would ask that (even though it's extremely long and convoluted) you at least give us over there the same courtesy that you expected from Badgerpatrol. Many of us (far more than 3 or 4) have been working long and hard in an attempt to make the policy better, not weaken it. To paraphrase what you said to Badgerpatrol, if you can willingly participate in helping to make our proposals better or otherwise more coherent, fine. But please don't pop in occasionally to impugn the integrity of the perticipants just because you either don't understand what we are trying to do (since it is so convoluted), or because you sense that what we are attempting is a weakneing of a crucial policy. Many of us fail to see how a definition of primary, secondary, etc. has anything to do with what OR is, or how moving (not deleting) the problemmatic definitions someplace else would weaken the policy. Any constructive participation in the discussions would be greatly appreciated, but please, don't just come in and criticize the hard work many people have done with false statements just because the issue is so convoluted it takes a while to digess. Thanks. wbfergus Talk 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In Lucky Luc's case; his second captaincy tenure - lasted only 1 game (his last home game before retirement). It was a goodwill gesture by Mattias Norstrom (who resumed the captaincy the next game). GoodDay 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
here....cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You should stop asserting that I claim to be an "Owner" of the Homeopathy article. I have explained in detail how nothing I am doing is anywhere near exhibiting ownership of the article yet you continue to refer to me as the "owner" of the article. This is counter productive and it needs to stop. Secondly, You need to read the talk page prior to making anymore revisions. Ignoring the discussion on the talk page and persisting in making controversial disagreed upon edits does not help anything either. The information that you keep moving from the Clinical trials section was actually written for that section. It fits nowhere else and without it, The clinical trials section starts off by talking about "later" trials without ever elaborating on earlier trials. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I hate to agree, but it does look like Wikidudeman has a WP:OWN problem in this case.-- Filll 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm done with trying to AFG with WDM. I wonder if he sees why his RfA went down in flames? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's clear this up right now. According to WP:OWN, examples of Ownership are:
Please give me an example where I have done a single one of these things. The VAST majority of the edits made to that article are undisputed by me. Please review the history of the article as proof of this. Long strings of edits made by other editors are undisputed by me. Only a small fraction of the edits made are disputed in which case I generally revet to the older version, make a change that I think might solve the problem, and then wait to see if it's changed again. If it is then I bring it to the talk page for discussion. I don't engage in edit wars. Any comments I make on talk pages of other users are not made to discourage them from editing. I simply make comments (like the one made here) to try to help solve a dispute. Never have I attempted in any way to discourage any editor from editing the article. WP:OWN gives further examples of comments usually made by editors exhibiting ownership of articles:
Please give me one example of where I have made comments such as this or even similar to this concerning the Homeopathy article. The fact is, I do not exhibit ownership of the article. I follow policy to the tee when editing the article and I am simply proactive. If I dispute an edit made by an editor I will quickly try to resolve the matter following WP:CCC. As explained above, If an editor makes an edit that I disagree with, I generally revert to the previous version, make changes that I think might solve the problem, and then wait to see if another edit is made by the same editor of the same kind. If it is then I will bring the discussion to the talk page so that we can determine what the problem is and solve it. This is how Wikipedia works, This is not ownership in any sense of the word. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S., I expect those accusing me of exhibiting ownership of this article to respond to all of my points and explain in detail how I am exhibiting ownership. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm done commenting here. I've tried to get you and OrangeMarlin to help improve the article when It was being rewritten, I've tried to get you and OrangeMarlin to help with the article after it was rewritten, and now I try to have a rational discussion with the two of you but all I get in return are insults and accusations. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOS#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms The genus and species name should be initialized. Taxa above genus are not. Hardyplants 05:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Orangemarlin,
Why are we saving space? I think we have normally included as much information as possible in the references in case people wanted to look up the references themselves. A Digital Object Identifier is obviously superior to a normal web-link (because it's permanent), but not everyone will know what a DOI is. I've only been leaving a field blank if there's just no information for that field. Do you think I should switch to the "minimal information is better" style? Suggestions welcome, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a note to inform you that the article on Homeopathy has been listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment for review to see if it still meets the Good Article Criteria. Editors are encouraged to comment on this nomination and reach consensus on the specific concerns raised by reviewers. Tim Vickers 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Orangemarlin/Archives 2 | |
I would like to thank you for your participation in my successful RfA, which passed with a tally of (44/10/5) [1]. Whether you supported, opposed or were neutral in my RfA, I appreciate your participation and I hope that we can continue to work together to build a stronger and better Wikipedia. | |
Regards, nat t a n g 04:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
Hi there. I have to warn you OM that if you continue to push for a highly critical approach, rather than a neutral assessment of homeopathy in this article you may find your arguments dismissed as coming from a POV-warrior. I know you have very strong feeling on this, but we can't take this stance throughout the entire article. This is entirely legitimate in the section on scientific assessment, but this article also needs to give a neutral and accurate account of the history and methods of this pseudoscience. Indeed, condemning the practice with its own words is a very effective approach! All the best Tim Vickers 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I've finished editing the article, any comments on my changes? Tim Vickers 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Creation Museum#Recent reversions -- I think some of the recent reversions have been performed under misapprehension (caused in part by misleading difs). Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi OM. I share your concern about the username to a certain degree. I don't know if you decoded the number - it spells Adolf again on a standard phone keyboard (I didn't get it at first as we never used the number/letter duality in Germany until the advent of the cell phone and text messages). -- Stephan Schulz 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
glad i'm not the only one. i was getting a complex. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you can find some other unfathomable points to make. I've got better things to do then put up with your unwarranted snippery. Neil ム 21:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Orangemarlin:
I'll bite. What is a gyroomfpov?
Thanks, Wanderer57 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the best version to go back to. Thanks. Richard001 05:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just curious. Saw on your page that you felt 'evolutionist' was derogatory.
Do you feel the same way about the terms: biologist, geologist, physicist, captialist, marxist, archaeologist, paleontologist, etc?
I really do not understand the differences. Also what term would you give to describe a person who is knowledgeable, or works or studies evolution? Now I would describe a person who studies or a specialist in the branch of biology dealing with animals as a zoologist. Is that derogatory? How would you describe a person who studies or a specialist in the branch of biology dealing with evolution? Imbrella 17:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homeopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors-- Sm565 07:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi OM,
Thanks for your continued diligence watching Dinosaur. Over the past few days it's been unprotected, it's been vandalized by IPs a dozen times a day. I noticed your name pop up quite a bit in the recent history of the article, reverting vandalism. I truly don't understand why anyone bothers unprotecting this article; there are never any good IP edits to it, and the unprotecting admin never bothers checking back to see how the unprotection is going, leading to a lot of work for other people. Luckily, the bots caught a lot of it. Thanks again for your help, OM.
(I just noticed the block notice above. I hope everything is alright). Firsfron of Ronchester 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My dear Wikipedian Orangemarlin,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. I will be sure to prove to you that I am capabale of handling Admin duties. Thank you and good day.
This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.
This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.
I appreciate your comments regarding the blank, blank and blankety blank block that was given me over 2RR (yup, 2RR, and I thought I was reverting an edit-warrior, so I thought I was even exempt from 3RR). Anyways, keep up the good work. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ready to swab the deck! | ||
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
Just letting you know that I reverted your revert of my revert of vandalism - Twinkle has some lag, so I presume that you went to revert the vandalism but got my revert instead. Cheers, Daniel 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
By my count you're on 3 reverts, so be careful (god knows you've had enough "fun" with blocks recently). I won't revert back to "assertion", but to assert means to maintain a cause or a claim by words or measures - which is precisely what ID amounts to; it's technically a more correct word. "Claim" is a loaded term that immediately suggests "this whole thing is bullcrap", and is less neutral. Neil ☎ 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed on one of your reverts you said the article didn't need to be converted to an AD date format because it wasn't about a Christian topic. Actually, CE was originally a Christian term, meaning Christian as well as Common Era, and some Christian sects such as Jehova's Witnesses use it in their publications. kwami 19:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism? That's a laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.225.246 ( talk) 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not appropriate. I have removed your edit. Whig 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"Well, there are other ways to have ProfG removed from the project, that don't rely upon the minority opinions of two admins." Can I trust you are referring to arbitration? -- B 00:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, [3]. Mercury 12:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel( Talk) 15:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a username and frequently log in, I must not have been earlier. Thanks and keep up the good work. 67.93.205.78 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that you've been reverting as vandalism the page User talk:Laorv when the user removes the warning. As per user page policies:
Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.
Just thought you should know! :-) -- Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I knew you could delete or archive bogus warnings or those that don't assume good faith. he's been blocked, so i'm all right. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on some real-life information you posted (no need to repeat it here, this is the internet, hotheads & loons abound, etc) I thought you might like this blog. It's a shame it will never count as a reliable source. Yours... Sheffield Steel talk stalk 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You and I are of similar minds on the User:Profg unblock. But I'd like to ask you to back off from the strident tone. I'm as mad as you about the disregard for constructive editors that this move shows, but by descending to his level you're only reinforcing the (mis)perception that Profg was unfairly singled out. Raymond Arritt 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that Profg has retired. I doubt if he'll be missed. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about it. About the block, I made an error. I want to apologize. I have made an appropiate note in your blocklog. I'll be more careful in the future. Mercury 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It was merged a month back -- SmithBlue is just belatedly bemoaning the fact. Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sm565. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly going to oblige you after speaking like that. It's Cognitive dissonance btw. "My IQ proves that the US Navy recruits the smartest officers" so what's your IQ? Tstrobaugh 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You initiated contact on my talk page, I responded. Can't you have a normal conversation? What is it with you and censorship? Tstrobaugh 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Wuzzat s'possed teh mean? Don' be pointin' fingers at guys widout knowin' du whole situation. Got it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnoff ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Join in when you have time! :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
excuse me! i would never add unsourced information! i am a talmudic authority and i quoted exactly what and where it is stated. dont question me again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.152.2 ( talk) 10:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, I happened upon the Wyoming (schooner) article you created and saw the "That Boat Won't Float" reference that does not appear to meet WP:RS. I have tried to find a reference that meets WP:RS that backs that paragraph up (I agree with the sound research on that page) but can't. Do you have another source possibly before I go and remove that source (and possibly paragraph)? Thanks for your time! Spryde 12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I've been on a knitting bender, making socks for Christmas gifts, then the archiving bot took your post to my talk page archive before I saw it.
Anyway, if there's a program to help lose weight, I haven't found it, but I'm optimistic. When I had my first child, I lost 24 pounds in six days, so I've done it once and can do it again. That was expensive, though. And I had to take a baby boy home with me too. ;-) You could always turn to the myriad 'supplements,' like the ones that use chitin to bind cholesterol or some other such nonsense. (If that really worked, why not just eat lobster shells with a nice sauce and a lot of liquor and be done with it?)
Can't help you with the women, though. OTOH, it _is_ July, and you could always go over to a hospital near you and check out the brand new crop of wide-eyed interns. You know it's July when we have to dust off the "Ventilator Settings and IV Orders In The Real World" class and give it to them every damn morning until it sinks into their skulls. No software to teach them the difference between medical school and reality, and I'm _not_ optimistic about that. I guess I can't have everything.
Seriously, though, the apps/scripts I use most often, besides Butler, for Wiki-stuff (apologies if I've told you about these before):
Okay, I'll shut up now. Email me if you have any questions, so I don't clutter up your talk page. It's time to eat some ice cream. See ya - Krakatoa Katie 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You always catch me when I'm gone for a few days. Suspicious minds would wonder if I'm being watched... ;-)
I was coming to recommend Twinkle, but I see you've already got it. You can take a look at my monobook.js page if you want to see how it can be configured, 'cause I don't have the whole script imported like you do. AzaToth is pretty responsive to questions and bugs, and the Twinkle talk page is lively if help is needed.
I must go knit now. Christmas is coming... so much yarn to buy, so much to knit and so little time. I'll be in and out of here, mainly 'out' with brief bursts of 'in', until I'm sure everything will be completed. See ya – :-) Krakatoa Katie 15:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a way to censor people…it's an excuse to block them and mar their record! Otherwise the comments which are supposedly so horrible would be deleted. I do believe there needs to be a civility policy, but it should be framed in an entirely different manner, from the standpoint of a publisher, not a prosecutor of our own volunteer contributors. Any bad diff is Wikipedia's, and should be treated accordingly. The questions should be, "Could this needlessly harm someone's reputation?", "Does this bring disrepute upon the project?" etc. If your swear too much (or only when you're upset,) someone should refactor it, not treasure and hoard it for future use against you. That they opt for the latter suggests that these are seen not as genuine offenses, but as "slip-ups" in a game of WP:GOTCHA! The only reasons to block contributors in this context is 1) because they force others to clean up after them too often WP:RESPONSIBLE 2) because they're starting fights with other volunteer contributors WP:AGGRESSOR. What strikes me as very dysfunctional is when one editor initiates a hostile conflict in coolly "civil" language, then uses the angry reaction against the victim: an easy system for dishonest and manipulative personalities to game. Proabivouac 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I was reediting that particular statement in Intelligent design per what seemed to be a consensus on the talk page. If you have some disagreement with this change, would you mind bringing it up there so we don't end up arguing via an edit war? -- Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of your comments on this page have been wildly uncivil. Please restrict yourself to commenting on content and not attacking other editors. Viridae Talk 06:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what B said, I had a brief look at his contributions but could not find the source of the argument - that said, numerous people have already confronted him about his attitude, so I don't see the need to pile on. The reason you are being warned is because I came across some extremely offensive behaviour from you on his talk page. As I said, please restrict yourself to commenting on content not editors. Viridae Talk 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Can all concerned just knock it off? Please? It's Friday afternoon. Have a drink (recommend: Sierra Nevada Pale Ale), crank some music (recommend: good old time blues like Howlin' Wolf), and relax. Raymond Arritt 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This is addressed communally to everyone because I know you'll all see it here. If I'm wrong, I humbly apologize. Either way, I realized something tonight ... it isn't enjoyable any more. If you see a photo pop up in a Tech article, you might have found me, but probably not. Take care ... and I honestly mean that. -- B 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, OM...Congrats on getting your own little passage in the Ferrylodge case [4]. It's stunning that even though they cleared the CU, this "evidence" is allowed to remain and B gets off free as a bird. Sigh.... Baegis 18:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This edit was not only very bitey but your edit summary confuses WP:WEASEL (i.e., an attempt to suggest sources without actually citing any) with qualifications necessary for factual accuracy. It's hard to see how the two could be confused: Removing the "Some" from "Some people in Manchester are criminals" is not de-weaseling, it is turning a true statement into a false one. All the edits by 71.254.7.200 that you removed from Fine-tuned universe seem to me to be obviously sensible qualifications of statements that were originally over-general or making unjustified assumptions. PaddyLeahy 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
POV? All I asked for is proper sourcing. I commented on the talk page. What is the deal with calling my edits pov. Turtlescrubber 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As you have above. I am not a troll and don't appreciate being called one. Turtlescrubber 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I find that unacceptable. Turtlescrubber 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on D. James Kennedy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Turtlescrubber 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Any more of this kind of taunting and you face a block. ElinorD (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)