User talk:Harry491

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: User talk:Harry491/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Wiki Wiffle Bat

Thanks for the award! I very much appreciate your willingness to consider an alternative point of view. Wikipedia works so much better when people can discuss such questions on their merits, without calling each other "asshole" every five minutes. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

[edit] Principles

Thanks! Everyking 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

[edit] Alfrem

"the best solution is to keep reverting him" --Alfrem 8 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, I haven't seen exactly what this user has done. Have you tried taking the dispute off WP, such as talking it over in e-mail, etc? Often that can be more successful in a case like this, because it can be easier for a person to make concessions when the discussion isn't public. Also you could try Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, which I had a little bit of success with once a while back. On the other hand, if you think the user is completely beyond reason, you might want to just wait and see how Arbitration turns out. Everyking 8 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

[edit] Demining

I'm still keen, I won't be around much this week since I should be finishing data analysis for a paper for publication, but after that I'll be back to my regular wikiaddicted self. If you start things off, I'll drop in and helpout when I'm not cruncing numbers. --nixie 03:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarianism

Well... I was thinking that as they have a fair point we should remove the tag by addressing their actionable issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that on that stanford page it's refering to geolibertanism not any of the anarachist types Chuck F 15:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the note, Dave. I am new and so don't know how to 'talk' to you other than editing this page. Also, why 'Dave' when your username is 'Harry'? Anyway, maybe I will eventually do more than fix typos in the articles I read. :-) See you! Cyferx 21:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome template

Sure! It's at Template:Welcome4 and you can insert it by typing {{welcome4|Harry491}} . It will automatically link to your talk page if you use the |Harry491. -- Essjay · Talk 19:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I created that template because most of the others say the same old thing over and over, and I thought those were some particularly useful links. It works great if you're the first or second to welcome. -- Essjay · Talk 19:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for moving up that comment for me. I have the little in-line notes (the ones editors can see, but don't show up on the regular page) at the top & bottom of the page, but it never seems to work. Honestly, I didn't even know I had a "new comment" button, and I still can't find it! Oh, well, I don't worry too much, if they leave them at the bottom, I just move them up. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 10:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, ha! I didn't know that! Anyhow, I'm not really worried about it; at the worst, I have to move a couple messages up. I used to have a note at the top of the page, but it seemed kinda snippy, so I removed it. I haven't had that big of a problem, so I'm not going to worry about it. -- Essjay · Talk 12:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right. The to-do list already works off a subpage, so I'm just going to move it there and put a link to my talk page. Thanks!
As for the article, I'll take a look at it; I was incredibly flattered by El C describing me as a "foremost expert" and vehemently denied any such title, but he insists, so I added it in. I'll get that article on the to-do list stat! -- Essjay · Talk 03:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem has been accepted. There is a pending temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alfrem/Proposed_decision#Alfrem_banned_from_Libertarianism. Fred Bauder 13:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Dave, I know you are going to add evidence. Just a spot of advise: in order to make it clear to the arbitrators, we must present evidence in the format that I have used. Unnecessary commentary will be looked down upon and just muddy up the waters. Felt you should know. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


How would you feel about archiving all the senseless trolling by Alfrem on Talk:Libertarianism into its own archive? I think the issue is pretty much resolved and we don't need to scroll past all that crap anymore, plus it would be good to preserve it in one place for any future reference by ArbCom. I'm leaving this message on several talk pages, so unless someone objects, I'll do that in a couple days. --Malathion 04:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Welcome!

Huh? I couldn't help but notice the template:Welcome4 form letter you posted on my talk page, so I was wondering whether I forgot to sign my comments somewhere (I usually remember) or messed up in some other way? In any case, I'm not a noob.
I guess the point of what I'm trying to say is...

"I do appreciate your concern and encouragement, Dave/Harry491, yet it has also caused confusion as I am left wondering which part(s) of the greeting card is(are) directed toward me."

— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Perhaps I should create a template:WTF? for just this purpose.

Oh and by the way...

PS I like your user name quite a bit. It reminds me of an
argument from a psychology book I read.

Do you still have the book? (ambiguous as to whether "read" is past or present tense)
If the "argument" goes deeper than one simply being "A Product of My (Freud's?) Environment" I'd very much like to read it, so could you post (or at least paraphrase) the pertinent passages at my talk page?
— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Year 2038 problem

Thanks for the heads up. MadIce 21:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarianism

I'm leaving this plea on several talk pages. Some editors have been making significant changes to the lead section of Libertarianism and putting the justifications for their edits in the edit summary. I think this is somewhat inappropriate, because it means there will be relentless edit warring, and it is greatly disruptive to this featured article. Please concentrate on using Talk:Libertarianism to discuss changes before they are made, and use the edit summaries to explain what is being edited, not why. Thanks --malathion talk 17:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda - name change vote

Hello, you expressed an opinion on the talk page that "conspiracy theory" should not be part of the name, there is a vote to change the name (Talk:Saddam_Hussein_and_Al-Qaeda#poll_on_changing_the_name_of_this_page) from Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. I would appreciate it if you could vote. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 05:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] libertarianism, anarchism, anarcho-capitalism

Hey Dave. No, that would not be acceptable to me, because anarcho-capitalism is in fact a form of anarchism. Not all anarchism is "social anarchism." --individualist anarchism for example; I had to put individualist anarchism section in because the article had been ignoring it and assuming all anarchism in the world is communist. In the same way, it makes no sense to ostracize anarcho-capitalism. The article quality would suffer as a result of letting POV warriors getting their way. The anarchism article needs to be objective, and not let certain editors pick and choose which anarchistic philosophy is "real anarchism." Throughout the history of anarchism, difference schools of anarchism have criticized the others for being "real anarchism." But, the editors need to find some way to rise above their POV's and include all schools. I don't think that ostracizing certain philosophies is consistent with the NPOV policy. It makes for a biased article. I don't think anyone should cave in to Kev's requests based on what he says is going on in other articles. I think he's being really irresponsible. He's deleting anarcho-capitalism from anarchism article, and giving the libertarianism article as justification. If he thinks the libertarianism article is POV then if he was a good editor he would know that making the Anarchism article POV is not the solution. If POV is wrong, then it's wrong ..don't multiply it. But he's not a good editor. I've dealt with him a lot. He is very petty, takes revengful actions such as editing articles in a POV way in order to get back at other articles being what he believes to be POV. Not to mention, he's very paranoid and believes that I'm part of an anarcho-capitalist conspiracy ..follows me around Wikipedia deleting my edits (he's convinced himself that I'm an anarcho-capitalist). The kid has a problem ..I almost feel sorry for him. Anyway, the Libertarianism article just may be biased, but what's going on in Anarchism shouldn't matter (I don't think it is biased, since I never see libertarian socialism being referred to as "libertarianism" ..it's always the two words together, though I could be wrong.) But, if it is biased, I wouldn't change it based on what's going on in Anarchism. I wouldn't cave into that kind of childish reasoning. We, as editors, need to be NPOV. POV going on in one article doesn't make it right to make another article POV. Compromise is fine, but the one thing we shouldn't compromise is NPOV. RJII 14:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I do see a difference between the two articles that merits different handling.
Libertarianism, today, is defined as as individualist and liberal philosophy (as the article describes it now). But anarchism is just defined as a philosophy that opposes the existence of government in favor of voluntary interaction. Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, reflects this. The libertarianism articles in the encyclopeida says libertarianism is a "political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson." Whereas they define anarchism as "cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." Anarchism can include a variety of philosophies ..obviously they can oppose each other in other respects. (for example, Individualist anarchism opposes collectivist anarchism). But, libertarianism is not defined as a cluster of doctrines, but specifically defined as they way it's defined in the Wikipedia article.
Also, I don't know if you saw what i wrote in the page move article, but you may find it of interest or relevance: "It's actually a little more involved than that. In the United States, "libertarianism" was interchangeable with American individualist anarchism (throughout the 19th century and early 20th century). Gradually, the European collectivist usage was infiltrating, so some people were using it to refer to all kinds of anarchism. 19th century American individualist anarchism was in favor of private property (one could say it was a more radicalized form of classical liberalism) and opposed collectivist anarchism (though also opposed "usury"). It's not that the term "libertarian" was stolen from the left-libertarians. It's just that the American usage has traditionally referred to individualist philosophy. It's the left-libertarianism that infiltrated the U.S. So it should be no surprise that libertarianism today, in the United States, is commonly understood to refer to liberal individualism, rather than collectivism. Individualism is a tradition that's long been developing in the U.S. RJII 23:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)" RJII 15:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
American individualist anarchism has always been opposed to collectivist anarchism and in support of private property --from Josiah Warren on down. About the Britannica, I can't access the whole article either. But we don't need to reflect the articles of other encyclopedias. I was just using that as an example, that anarchism is not defined as being against stateless capitalism, just as it's not defined as being against private property. It's defined as being anti-state and anti-coercion. In ancient history, it's been, in practice, anti-state-capitalism, and a mix of anti-private property philosophies and pro-private property philosophies (american individualist anarchism). But, capitalist anarchism has been around since at least the 1950's. So, certainly, it's historical and traditional enough to be included as a form of anarchism, in my opinion --especially since it meets the definition of anarchism. RJII 15:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Anarchism

...it might be a good idea for you to take steps towards reconciliation by adding a disambig at the top that points to anarcho-capitalism and a section cut from the highlights of anarchism and capitalism with a discussion of anarcho-capitalism. The disambig could read something like "This article deals primaritly with socialist variants of anarchism. For more detailed discussion of capitalist variants, see Anarcho-capitalism."

I will take exactly these steps. I am not hopeful that they will succeed, but I'm willing to take any solution that applies the same standard to both articles, since the arguments I have heard that claim merit to treating libertarian socialism as something other than a form of libertarianism while treating anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism are not at all compelling to me. If you come up with any other ideas for a solution, let me know. Kev 23:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you get a moment please take a look at my attempt at applying your suggestions [1] and let me know if there is something I'm forgetting or something you think should be worded differently. I should note that I feel the disambiguation is already a great compromise, since it indicates that capitalism is in fact a form of anarchism, something I don't think wikipedia should be doing, but something I'm willing to accept if it brings some sanity to the situation. Kev 23:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Nope, he reverted it almost right away. Lemme know if you come up with any other ideas for compromise. Kev 06:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I am not holding the libertarianism article responsible for the actions of several libertarian editors on the anarchism page. What I am doing is absolutely insisting that the same standards be applied when conditions are relatively equal. That is certainly not what is happening on wikipedia right now, not when one article faces a never ending revert war based on the actions of a small number of libertarians while the other completely shuts out all information on libertarian socialism and gets a pass for being NPOV. One of these articles is seriously flawed in the way that editors on both pages are pushing it, and until that flaw gets fixed so that a blatant hypocricy is not evident I'm not interested in supporting business as usual.
If you can come up with a solution for either article, or convince editors on either article to accept a solution that applies the same standard to each, I'm totally open for it. Until then, I would be irresponsible not to maintain the NPOV flag. Kev 15:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Please consider my offer to help you keep the Anarchism page clean. I'd rather help you file an RFC against RJII than file one against you. Alternatively, you could add a subsection to the terminology section for libertarian socialism, briefly summarizing that philosophy, which is analogous to what RJII is doing on Anarchism. Dave (talk) 15:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I am happy to accept your offer to help keep anarchism clean. Or, if you would prefer, I would be happy to pursue the RFC with you. I do not believe that a subsection in the terminology section is analogous to what RJ is doing, given that he insists that the entire article never refer to anarchism as anything other than compatible with capitalism, and constantly compares anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism with all other forms to create the impression of a huge schism, and adds the AC section to the "schools" section of anarchism. All of those edits go far beyond one subsection in a part of the article implying different meanings. Anyway, you let me know which of the two options, or both, you want to proceed with and I'm there.
As for the RFC against me, you do what you think is best. If someone has a comment that helps me better see your position, or a better path for me to take, than I welcome it. I wouldn't be doing this if I agreed with your interpretation that I'm holding the libertarianism article "hostage", I sincerely believe that I am trying to find a common standard that can be applied to any article and breaking this implicit double standard that exists because of the bias of various editors. Kev 16:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


I will try to be more careful to accept parts of his reverts that are valid, but they are few and far inbetween, so it would help if he made them seperately. As you can see from the history I'm the only person on the page who is reverting while still trying to save valid edits built on other versions. Further, his focus on me is odd, since there are nearly a dozen people reverting his edits whereas his are being supported only by himself and an anon who is almost certainly Hogeye.
Still, some of his claims are simply false. For example, the only "information" on Godwin that I'm removing are POV assertions that are demonstratably false like this one, "Godwin advocated an extreme type of individualism opposing every kind of organized cooperation among individuals, believing it to interfere with benevolence (even orchestras were opposed)." There is written evidence that Godwin believed in many forms of organized cooperation, so this claim is simply not true, and arises from RJs insistence on painting every possible piece of evidence in a particular light that supports his own beliefs.
I have removed the POV banner on the libertarianism page, I still believe that the article needs work, but I'm acting in good faith that there will be some consistency in how it is presented. Hopefully once anarchism gets stable I can then edit libertarianism to come into line with that version, assuming any edits are needed. Kev 00:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
RJ continues to build off of reverts by a banned user. Even if he pretends not to know what everyone else does (that the anon user is Hogeye), that anon has already violated the 3RR 9 times today, yet RJ refuses to abide by wiki policy and enforce this ban and the 3RR. Right now he is using Hogeye's gaming of the system to his own advantage to insert edits between copies. It already takes me enough time to dig out worthwhile edits from RJ's reverts, I can't do it for both RJ and Hogeye's when they work in tandem. Until he stops building off the copies of this banned user I am not going to be able to save all of his edits. Kev 05:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about my objections anymore, as I no longer intend to edit wikipedia. I believe there is a systemic bias due to the predominant demographic of wiki editors. This bias alone would not be a problem, but the handful of individuals who resort to dishonesty, gaming of wiki policy, use of anon IPs to avoid the 3RR, and continually ignore evidence that contradicts their edits, seems to generate very bad results when combined with that general bias. At this point, controversial articles will end up saying whatever those who are most persistant and most willing to use tactics that contradict the purpose of wikipedia want it to say, unless the community at large becomes involved, which seems unlikely given that several admins have suggested that anarchism is "too hot" to intervene in. So I give up. Good luck with the libertarianism page, I'm sorry to say that it is less your solid edits and more the willingness of the wiki community to stand by them that will allow that page to remain neutral while anarchism remains a POV nightmare. Kev 14:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

No need to thank me for the vandalism revert, thats the kind of thing I'm supposed to be doing ;) I was actually wondering if you'd like to be nominated for adminship after the ArbCom case you're involved in is resolved (it looks like it will be soon)? Let me know and I'll work out a suitably flattering intro. My editing has been all over the place lately, I'm working on getting Fauna of Australia featured, I'd appreciate some critical reading if you've got time. Once thats done I'll put some more efort in on demining.--nixie 03:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your feeling about adminship. Wikipedia needs a decent mechanism for recognising good contributors that isn't adminship.--nixie 03:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enzymes

Some of your concerns are dealt with. Take a new look of it and make further comments if any. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA FAC

I do have some motives to what the GNAA does: they mainly attack sites that promote Zionist views. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Libertarianism

I see you finally got the tag off the article, congratulations! I'll be happy to change my vote accordingly if the tag doesn't reappear legitimately in the next few days. Steve block talk 17:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] keveh's vandalism

Dave, he's reverting whole series of edits by others. And by you reverting, you're doing the same thing. Why are edits concerning William Godwin, being deleted, for example? That has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. There needs to be some kind of explanation for these wholesale reversions of others' edits. RJII 19:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about my edits, but edits of others as well. Lots of new information is being deleted when he does his reverts to get anarcho-capitalism out of the article. RJII 19:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but I thought I had been doing that generally. I'll try to be more careful, so there will be no question of his carelessness. But, I'm going to have to revert your revert when I get a chance, if no one else does. Then Kev, or other POV inclined individual, needs to delete specific things and explain them. RJII 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TNR Hackett article

Thanks for calling my attention to this. I usually borrow The New Republic from the public library and I'll read in print when their copy comes in. Thanks again. PedanticallySpeaking 14:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not enough references

I added a few more. I explained in FAC why there are so few of them, I am not aware of any formal requirement that an article should have more then 1 ref (although of course the more the better). Is it better now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bug in anarchism talk page

Hey I saw you were stricken by the anarchism talk page bug. I found a way to prevent it. If it happens in the future, do this: After you do your edit see if the bug was activated or not by seeing if your edit is there at the bottom of the page. If the page is screwed up go BACK with your browser and resend the command. Anyway, thanks for the source. Those guys on Christian anarchism were trying to tell me that they had no views on economic systems. They're going to be in for a surprise when I stick that in there. RJII 18:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks...

I know...it was only supposed to take two weeks! On the plus side, I don't think I've spent this much time in the library since i was a freshman... :)

Cheers Anilocra 10:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yay! Woo! (sort of, anyway) It turns out that the courier company who were bringing it back managed to lose it somewhere, so today I am now the proud owner of a shiny new laptop instead! Lost all my saved stuff that wasn't work related though :/ Anilocra 15:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fauna

Thanks, I don't know how I missed that :) .--nixie 06:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the easy things and left some notes on the talk page, I'll let you know when I get new text written, thanks. --nixie 07:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration commitee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem case →Raul654 22:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Hong Kong

If you have a minute, would you mind popping by Flag of Hong Kong and see if you have any more objections to promoting the article? We've fixed up everything there is to fix :) --HappyCamper 07:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia policy on units

What should I do if I'm not happy with articles that use Imperial Units? Is automatic conversion a user preference that can be adjusted? I wasn't able to find a Wikipedia policy page dealing with this. Btw, I'm editing your whole page right now. Is this the right way to leave you a message? (I can imagine a system for pages like this one, where you could just append to this of the current page) Guslacerda 07:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC);

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Libertarianism

I have amended my vote to keep, as the tag has stayed off ten days. I apologise if you felt my move was unnecessary, I sought only to have the tag removed, since I do feel a featured article should not have such a tag, and I hoped the listing for removal would concentrate the efforts of all editors to that effect. Steve block talk 08:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] self-plug?

Can I also use the Wikipedia as a guestbook for my website?

What about Wikipedia entries on Gustavo's Blog, Gustavo's Website, etc?

Guslacerda 10:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC);


[edit] Mediation

Hi, I wondered into a quagmire on Ted Kennedy, one party wants to include extensive detail on a rape allegation and sexual harassment of a waitress, the other side doesn't want a bar of it. Since I'm the admin that protected the page and reverted to the last concensus version I am the enemy, despite saying that I though the deatail should be included just with less emphasis. If you get a chance could you check out the talk page, some more level heads are needed to rewrite a NPOV section. Thanks--nixie 04:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikistalking guideline proposal

Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense when done for the purpose of harassment. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] California new domestic partnership law/ interaction with Fed law

I guess, technically, that I could offer myself as an authoritative source on this, since I've been doing family law in California since 1978, and have been a State Bar oif California Board of Legal Specialization certified specialist in family law since 1992. I've presented on this sort of stuff before, and am presenting again to an audience of accountants next month. It'd seem a little strange to say "According to me..." though.--Silverlake Bodhisattva 22:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] smart wiki

Hi Dave

Thanks for the past help.

I'm wondering if there are wikis that support "smart documents", in addition to just plain text. For example, in lists, elements could be added one by one, or they could be sorted automatically, the number of items could be counted automatically, etc.

Does the Wikipedia have any such thing?

Guslacerda 17:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC);

[edit] Dispute advice needed

I have expanded and improved Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda article considerably. My goal is to get the "Disputed" label removed. However, I have had an entry on Able Danger deleted several times by people claiming it is not relevant to the article. I have expanded the entry over time to make it more clear and show the relevance to the article and I have explained the relevance on the Talk page. Still it is deleted. I have viewed their deletions as simple vandalism and not subject to the 3RR but an administrator did not agree and suspended me for an hour. If you can find the time, I would like you to read the entry and the talk section on "Able Danger" (it is discussed in more than one place). I would appreciate hearing your point of view on the relevance of the entry on the Talk page and any advice you can give me on my User Talk page. Can people just claim information they do not like is irrelevant and delete it? RonCram 13:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarianism article

I don't know if my expertise is enough to provide an adequate critique, but you can send to dDOTrockDOT42+spamATgmailDOTcom. In addition to changing the DOTs to .s, and AT to @, remove the +spam. Yes I'm paranoid. D-Rock 20:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi, are you back for the holidays?--nixie 08:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Review vote

"Not paper"?--SarekOfVulcan 01:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Forgot about that one.--SarekOfVulcan 01:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ID footnotes

No problem. Haven't seen you around in a long while. Where ya been? FeloniousMonk 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bright Blessings

May the Universe bless and keep you, friend. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.--ghost 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up on dead link patrol

When you run across a dead link from a university, society, company, or other such organization (rather than a private web page) the address has sometimes just moved rather than disappeared, and can be found with a Google search. I found the Michael Polanyi Society had moved from a college to a university URL here [2]. Occasionally I find that a server is temporarily down, so I check a day or two later to be sure. Finally, if a link is really gone, you can often find and restore it from the permanent Internet Archive [3]. Thanks for helping with this important task. --Blainster 22:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] water-borne diseases

Hi Dave,

You wrote:

I'm adding the category to all the parasites I can think of. The only real judgment call was schistosomiasis/schistosoma/schistosomatidae, where people are infected from being in water rather than from drinking it.

Good to know someone else is taking an interest in this topic. I believe schistosomiasis schistosoma & chistosomatidae definitely count, as the disease is borne by water.

You have an interesting profile - I will visit your profile again soon. --Singkong2005 06:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A google search gives a few more diseases & pathogens... (do pathogens belong in the category on diseases?). E.g. [4] & [5]. I am, however, in a net cafe by the beach in Byron Bay. Life's tough. More editing in January. --Singkong2005 00:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dave, hope you had a great Xmas & NY.
You wrote:
I hope to have some great new stuff for you to see, involving this article and this one. Hopefully I can get them into articles without being too disruptive :-).
Hmmm... the first one is an important issue, and the second one is an interesting one about logic. Not sure what how they relate to Wikipedia, so I'll be interested to know what you end up doing with them. --202.94.85.136 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fine tuned universe

Hugh Ross isn't an IDist; try someone like Guillermo Gonzalez instead. — Dunc|☺ 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If I can get symmetry-breaking down to a small enough bit of information (a relatively short paragraph), I'll be happy to add it. I don't think any IDists will appreciate it though, as there are an infinite number of ways that the symmetry of the four known forces (weak, strong, EM and G) could have broken nanoseconds after the big bang, thus messing up Dembski's formula. Anyway, I'll give it a try tonight though (on paper -- I still do my best thinking using pen and paper) and assuming I'm successful (it really can get rather complex), I'll post it tomorrow.
Oh, symmetry-breaking is also relevant to biology. For example, both a human and starfish embryo exhibit O3 symmetry (meaning that the embryo can be rotated on the x, y, and z axes and still look the same). However, as the embryos move to the next stage of development (a head and trunk for a human, 5 arm-buds for a starfish) they undergo symmetry-breaking and a human has O2 symmetry (a cylinder that can be rotated on two axes) and a starfish S5 symmetry (rotating by 72 degrees on the y axis gives the same result. If you want me to go there with this, leave a message or send me an e-mail. Otherwise, I'll restrict it to physics and the cosmos. Take care Jim62sch 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting Marshill's objection

I think you may now see why I said resurrecting settled matters is a bad idea. It's disruptive and rarely constructive. Marshill's objections were ill founded to begin with; most were specious in that they ran counter to NPOV policy. Armed with little more than them he and a few others tried to force an issue with a straw poll, something that never goes down well and almost always backfires. So, about your resurrecting the issues, as Chesterton said, never take down a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place. Please work toward consensus, not in spite of it. FeloniousMonk 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, I've been watching the ID talk page for about a month (to 2, I think). The editors handling the ID article are under a lot of pressure, and I am quite amazed of the time and energy they had spent on this article. I am also not surprised if they feel stressed sometimes.
They really are okay with more help to improve the article, just please do try not to do an in-your-face my-way-is-better-than-yours sort of thing. I think you'll agree that sort of attitude is not easy to take.Lovecoconuts 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. -- Ec5618 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Copying from talk page:

I apologise for my sarcasm.
This article is one of the most edited, and one of the, if not the, best referenced article(s) on WP. A great deal of work by a very large number of people have contributed to this article. I have no illusions that the article is perfect, nor, I think, does anyone working on this article. Perhaps if you were more specific in your concerns, discussed them here, and achieved consensus prior to making sweeping statements and edits, you would indeed find that, as L&C so kindly states, we are not unreasonable (not even the puppy.) As a recent arrival perhaps you have not taken the time to read the archives thoroughly. If you do, you may find that some of your concerns have been discussed, to the point of ad nauseum, and you may find that you are not bringing our attention to problems of which we were unaware, but rather dredging up issues which have been settled, and resettled, numerous times. If there is a way to improve the article, we are all ears. Blanket statements of POV and bad layout without specifics are generally not well recieved, as they are not helpful.
KillerChihuahua?!? 02:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I noticed you seemed upset

I hope your forgive the gentle chiding that followed your and Tznkai's step back from the ID article. I've made a commitment to try to play hall monitor if needed. Things were clearly getting over the top.--ghost 20:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the link. I understand wanting to put your energies elsewhere. I hope you'll reconsider when you have the energy.--ghost 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fruity

Hi, I think your apples and oranges article is neat, do you think you could write up a little blurb for DYK, we're short on suggestions for the new year. In case you need reminding, you can make suggestions here. Thanks.

[edit] re: tegument

"...actually called a tegument..." Cool, that's why I left such a detailed edit summary. Happy Holidays TheLimbicOne 17:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Shepeard

Firstly, didn't I make this section before. It seems to have dissapeared and I can't find it in the page's edit history? I was talking about FWBO and all that. Anyway, I'm sorry but I can't see how my Sea Shepard edit has any relevance to WP:POINT. My reference is strictly confined to the factual account. Did I miss something here? Yoji Hajime

oh, i got it. my bad. Apologise. Yoji Hajime
would paraphrasing works. When I googled, every reference I found for the topic was paraphrasing of the same thing.Yoji Hajime
Thanx Yoji Hajime

[edit] Peer Review invite

I've made signifigant changes to the body cavity article and invite you to review it for completeness, style, and factual error. TheLimbicOne 11:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes. I need to put the article down for awhile so I can look at it fresh. TheLimbicOne 02:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article apples and oranges, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Have I misunderstood

Thank you for clarifying hemocoel. Unless I've misunderstood, the terms "hemocoel" and "open circulatory system" mean the same thing. Could I merge the articles on them or is there some usage where one would apply and the other would not? TheLimbicOne 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oooohhhh, I get it. I learn so much working on these articles. Thank you. TheLimbicOne 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fast

Wow, you move fast. Do you want help with the redirects (I'll start at bottom, you start at top)? Do we plan to add the article "open circulatory system" to "circulatory system"? Personally, I like having the info in one place, but it doesn't really make a difference in an encylclopedia where the "see also" is only a click away. TheLimbicOne 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll get them, but only if we're not going to merge "open..." into "circul...". Another reason to merge them (or rip "open" out of "circ"), the info on the "open" section of "circ" is a bit sloppy. TheLimbicOne 23:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My next merger

This one annoyed me while I was studying for a biology test. Eumetazoa used to redirect to animal even though that's not entirely correct (which I had to go to wikispecies to sort out). Any idea if the information someone removed from protostome (on its discussion page) is correct or not? TheLimbicOne 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review my latest proposed merge at eumetazoa as it's apparently controversial. TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petition on Bullying in Wikipedia

Hi Harry491. I have compiled a petition to send to Mr. Wales with respect to my views on bullying on Wikipedia, which I think is a very grave problem on Wikipedia that Mr. Wales needs to address: User:Benapgar/Bullying. Please sign it if you agree, and if you can think of other people who might agree please let them know about it too. --Ben 01:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] open circulatory system

It almost dropped off my watchlist before I noticed that someone completed the merge of open circulatory system and circulatory system. I thought you might like to review the work. I didn't notice any glaring errors. It looks like a basic cut and past of your last stub version right over top of the section in "circ system." --TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Statoflibertythumb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Statoflibertythumb.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

[edit] Libertarian views of rights

Wow! Just wanted to say I thought that article was one of the best, most concise descriptions of the subject I've ever read. I couldn't have written it better and, as a libertarian, it fit my views perfectly. Thanks for doing such a great job! Lawyer2b 05:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lew Rockwell

Would you cruise over to Talk:Lew Rockwell and offer your perspective? We've had a bit of a revert war going on there, and we could use the added insight. I've asked a couple of others to give it a look too. Thanks! Dick Clark 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Wikipedia

Hi, I used to be Hajime Yoji. I'm a jap but I usually edit English wikipedia. I noticed that in Japanese wikipedia, NPOV is translated badly. In the English version NPOV, it is clearly stated that confliciting view "are fairly presented". In Japanese wikipedia, it is changed to "are fairly considered". Moreover, the statement "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." and "Readers are left to form their won opinions" were missing. I amended it by adding direct translation. However, I subsequently noticed that, in Japanese wikipedia, they don't have verifiability or no original research criteria. You can check it yourself. In verifiability and no original reseach page, there is no link to Japanese wikipedia page. Partly due to this absence, there appear to be lot of rules. I compared Wikipedia:List of policies with Japanese one [6]. In Japanese wikipedia, there are 25 policies for Content (instead of 8) and 16 policies for "Style". Who can I conslut this matter with? There is no way I can translate the entire English wipedia policies into Japanese (I just did intro part for NPOV) but I don't think Japanese wikipedia would prosper without correct guidleline oversight from wikipedia foundation? FWBOarticle

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Myxobolus_range_(U.S.).GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Myxobolus_range_(U.S.).GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Myxospore.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Myxospore.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

An alternative legal analysis of NSA warrantless surveillance was imposed by an anon. You were a participant in the formation of that section. If you think you might be interested in returning to the topic, see Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy#questions of warrantless surveillance. - Metarhyme 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi Harry or henry

wtf is your name? well my name is lil' jon...YEAHHHH!

[edit] an old edit (+1 yr) at Hymenolepiasis

i've been working on rat-related articles and noticed you added something to the above article regarding a CT study that said 1/3 of the pet rats there had Rat tapeworm. I would be very interested in seeing this study and any related ones so that i could add the appropriate info to other articles - and neway, it would prolly be a good iea to add a ref to this somewhat damaging statement about the health risks apparant in the specific pet rat population. pls reply at my talk -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:AtlasThumb.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AtlasThumb.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Iamunknown 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarianism FAR

Libertarianism has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Sandy (Talk) 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/User_talk%7EHarry491_73d9.html"