User talk:KimvdLinde/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Flood of new templates

Hi Kim,

These are the latest:

• Template:phylo
• Template:speciation
• Template:origin of life

They look like this:

If you have any suggestions for articles to include that I may have overlooked, please let's have them. And if you want to give a hand with the upcoming evolutionary ecology template, which is a little short of material, please do: User:Samsara/Template04.

Best wishes, Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural selection, Qg

Hi Kim, thanks for your comments on natural selection. It's nice that there are new people willing to take it forward now that I've resigned from that article.

I wasn't sure what exactly you were trying to do when you temporarily changed the link from the qg template. Just for your interest, when I add the template to an article, I always remove those links from the "see also" section that are also present in the template. So you should be able to find the articles that link to any given subject not through the template by diffing, say "What links to Template:Qg" against "What links to heritability". Hope this is useful. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 09:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

How nice of you, I'm really touched. It's just good to be able to help with someone smart and enthusiasticGleng 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual articles

It looks as if we have similar ideas regarding sexual articles, especially regarding those containing original research. I hate to read articles containing potential lies. If you'd like me to take a look at anything you've nominated for deletion, let me know. Brian G. Crawford 06:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty Eight

Please dont merge articles without first discussing it with the people editing the page, especially when you are moving to an unknown name thank you. This should be either reverted back or move to Australian Ring Neck the Twenty Eight is not a Port Lincoln parrot. The Port Lincoln is not found in the southwest of Western Australia, there is over 1,000 km between habitats. Gnangarra 01:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HOX9

I thought it would be better to reply to you comment in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HOX9 here rather cluttering the AfD with my non relevant reply. Thank you for the explanation, a I stated genetics is not my strong point, I am now a lot clearer and can now easily see how I was heading down the wrong path in regard to clusters. Thanks --blue520 16:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Ringneck

Hi Kim, source for the status of the twenty eight are local media the only major print media here is paid subscriptions so cant access there, it was a big issue here about a month ago. I'll need to track down paper source for cite as there isnt any sufficiently quoteable sources from the net. The best net referrence to the issues are from New Zealand where they cite dept Conservation and Land Management , Agriculture Protection Board and University of Western Australia.

If you want to remove the paragraph from the article go for it, I have a copy which I'll work on and use to replace when I can sufficiently cite. Gnangarra 02:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You have done exceptionally well with this article, even more so as I haven't always been the most co-operative with its developement. I listed it for GA status and that recieved a positive response within hours. Gnangarra 15:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argument style and the Turing test

You know, what's-his-name often reminds me of ELIZA when he responds to arguments -- it's just about as productive to argue with him. Cleduc 02:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, I wish I could think of an excuse. Cleduc 03:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. Hope springs eternal, but I think he's stuck -- he's invested too much of his ego in this silliness, and now he's convinced he is Rosa Parks. But once he started attacking the admins, that was all she wrote. Cleduc 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural selection

I am impressed by anything you and Gleng agree on. I have notified User:Guettarda - as a rule, I defer to him on these matters and I think you would be wise to ask his advice. I won't do this myself, but I think User:FrankWSweet and User:Rikurzhen can be trusted on for well-informed views. I encourage you to solicit their views. I am swamped right now and cannot give it a close look for a few days. But if Guettarda and either Rikhurzhen or Frank Sweet give it the thumbs up, just go ahead and make it the new article. And if Marcos stries screwing with it, I will protect it. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me. If it comes to a vote, please include my comment (I really won't be around after today). Guettarda 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You might also solicit Graft's opinion, if he's around. Guettarda 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Graft is always thoughtful and well-informed too, worth seeking out. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, done and done. And I have solicite comments of a valued colegue who would definatly give comments if he thinks things should be written different. :-)Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that if, in addition to Guettarda's thumb's up, Rikurzhen, FrankWSweet, and Graft agree, you can very confidently make the permanent (as it were) change. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see Rikurzhen left some general feedback/advice - which all seems reasonable to me. Can you incorporate it? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

re above...how about adding something like It is important to note that, while natural selection provides an explanation for the origin of adaptations, natural selection does not inevitably lead to adaptations, nor does it necessarily lead to an increase in the fitness of individual organisms. For example, natural selection operating at the level of genes can give rise to 'parasitic' elements in the DNA (see selfish gene.)?Gleng 16:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biological Psychiatry arbitration

Thanks for your recent letter in my user page. I’m just curious: shouldn’t part of the ongoing talk in workshop page have already been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop as Stifle has suggested? [1]. Also, how long you feel this process will take: days? weeks? more than a month? I don’t feel comfortable to edit until it’s all over. —Cesar Tort 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded you in my subpage. Thanks. I already posted a brief entry in biopsych talk page, as you suggested, but an editor has replied. He only wants a most brief mention of the FDA warnings. What would you recommend? —Cesar Tort 04:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kim. I’ve seen your comment in biopsych talk page. Frankly, it would be a lot easier if someone else writes the concrete proposal. The material is all there in my subpage or the FDA bullet quotes. I simply don’t think it’s wise that I do the job during this process. (Perhaps Solo999 who has recently reentered the arena will give us a hand?) —Cesar Tort 03:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cacatuidae

Whats wrong with Cacatuidae and Cacatua that you have to change it to Cockatoo? All are the same. --Stavenn 00:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lou Franklin

Re: Lou Franklin—I'd suggest just ignoring the posts on his talk page. If we assume good faith to what is probably an unreasonable extent, it seems that we are unable to effectively explain the arguments that you (and I, and others) have placed on his page, and that further reiteration and recapitulation is likely to be unproductive.

If we don't assume a maximum of good faith, he's just trolling to get a rise out of you (and I, and others) to amuse himself during the remainder of his block. Either way, it's not productive, and if he is trolling, then I don't like to see him get the satisfaction of a response. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bouquet

This user has earned a bouquet for her great work on natural selection

Thanks, I am honered! Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Naturism issue

Kim, Christian Naturism is having an issue with an anon revert-warring because of a link to a place that apparently in the past 'may' have had some unsuitable images on their site, and which the anon (who for reasons 'we wouldn't understand' cant id themselves & get an account...) knows the site admin of, and I guess has a beef with...long story that boils down to censorship &c. Have tried to reason, won't listen, next option is 'prob' to get someone to semi-protect the page, you seem to have some more wisdom/experience in terms of how WP handles 'issues'; can I get you to either have a look or tell me where to go (figuratively of course ). Cheers, Bridesmill 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

's alright - I think they semi have it under control now. Thanks for stopping by. Tot ziens. Bridesmill 01:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coming Clean

KimvdLinde, there is a message for you and all others who put up with my recient antics on my talk page. 216.164.203.90 20:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand you are probally still upset at me. However, I knew the vandalism would easily be reverted and I appoligize for all of my rude comments directed at you. The reason I used my comuter a work was so my administrator election would not be affected. Thanks! 216.164.203.90`

In respone to asking every new admin canidate "that question." Your're scaring me now! Im going to do a poll at the disscussion page you started to see if revealing my identity would make people less inclined to vote yes to me. 216.164.203.90

[edit] Hi Kim!

I can never resist saying hi to someone who shares my name. :-P

Mindspillage pointed out that you're also a biologist, which is definately cool, so fair enough, I went and read your user page :-)

Hmm, you've given up on working on the evolution and natural selection pages? That's not good. That's still a project I've had on the backburner for a while.

Well, since I'm here anyway, maybe we could work on that? I haven't worked on any articles in a while. and I'm pretty good at dealing with people with differing beliefs on wikipedia. Kim Bruning 21:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biobarnstar for you

		The Bio-Barnstar
		For orchestrating the rewriting of Natural selection and many editorial contributions as part of this effort. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I am honered! Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Becuase, unless I am mistaken, the digits changed and it looks like the intro of false info. Feel free to revert. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I obviously didn't look at the history. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Puerto Rican birds

Thank you for all your help on List of Puerto Rican birds. I will soon (probably today after I add the last of the pictures) nominate it for featured list. I would like your opinion on the matter. Is it ready? Joelito (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Funnybunny's RfA

Hi, you appear to have removed all the oppose comments from Funnybunny's RfA in this edit. Could you explain why you did this? Was it a mistake? I have reverted your edit. Thanks, Gwernol 04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it must have been a mistake, especially given your record here on Wikipedia. Glad we could sort it out quickly. All the best, Gwernol 04:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar thanks

Thank you for your kindness. I am humbled by your barnstar. Joelito (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nat Sel

Hey Kim, I hope to have time to look at the new article soon. I've been hanging out at the hospital with my new daughter while stuff piles up on my desk at work. Pete.Hurd 00:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unequiocal evidence for the operation of Hamilton's Rule in humans

Hi Kim,

I am writing a paper on the operation of Hamilton's Rule in humans, and have asked the question below on the HR discussion page. As you seem to be very knowledgeable in this field, I was wondering if you might give your view?

It is unethical to manipulate genetic relatedness in humans. Furthermore, without exception, all studies of HR in humans to this date suffer one common drawback: the evidence is entirely observational, and it is therefore in no case possible to exclude categorically all confounding variables (interaction time, reciprocity etc.), so as to make an unequivocal test of the claim that human altruistic behaviour is modulated by the genetic relatedness, when other factors are held constant. In the light of this, what would constitue unequiocal evidence for the operation of Hamilton's Rule in humans ? Varga Mila 08:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

thx for claryfying. in this case, im the one who needs your help! best--Greece666 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you, KimvdLinde, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lovebird

sure thing regarding tone down. regarding the following paragraph from lovebird: "Lovebirds are very active and require a safe space for flight in addition to a roomy cage. They require lots of toys and things to chew on and play with. Without daily flight, a roomy cage, many toys and things to play with, and -- most importantly -- constant social interaction (i.e., a mate), they may resort to feather-plucking, which can be hard to stop. It is also a good idea to provide a bird bath tub, as they love to take baths almost every day. After taking a shower, many times they like to sun themselves in order to dry off."

There are several opinions presented as facts, particularly the need for flight. There is wide belief that pet parrots should be clipped and therefore not allowed to fly. Whether we are in agreement with this is irrelevent but my many birds are all clipped and do not fly yet I asses them as being happy and healthy. I would like to adjust the statement about daily flight being a requirement for a happy bird. This is clearly an opinion though it is stated as a fact. Also, constant social interaction with a mate is incorrect. Come to think of it I don't think the term "i.e." is even used correctly in this context... But whatever. I will await your response before editing the flying opinion here. Thanks. btw, am I using your discussion page correctly? I am unsure where I should be typing all this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.35.207 (talk • contribs).

I moved it down to the end. If you get to a talk page, you will see a set of tabs at the top. One of them contains a + and if you click that one, you are given the easiest option to add something to the page. The other thing that is generally a good practice is to sign your posts at the end with ~~~~ so that it is claer who wrote what.

The problem with many of the pet sections on the pages of many parrot species is that it is more a how to guide, and full of persoanl experience. I think the best way would actually to make a new page that deals with parrots as pets in general and have subheaders when there is specific information about a species. That would clean up the species pages from it, and the repeated information. What about the flying, opinion as far as I am concerned. I think that would be the way to describe it. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I agree that it is opinion. I will attempt to appropriately edit that piece. Also, I noticed "color" and "colour" are both used in the same sentence. Is that ok? 66.235.35.207 06:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy on spelling is that an article obvious liked to a specific country gets the spelling of that country (Australian parrots -> australian spelling etc). If not, it follows the spelling of the first page, and that was color. So, color should be used for this page. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome changes, really like them. I'm just going to do a minor tweak on the grammer in your most recent edits. please don't be offended. 66.235.35.207 06:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, I am not a native English speaker, and I am dyslectic, so feel free to change my spelling errors and grammar.Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more quick questions, the picture on the lovebird page, umm, makes those birds look as if they are living in crowded and dirty conditions (note the feces on the perch). Am I allowed to replace the picture and if so how do I do that? I imagine there are instructions on how to do that somewhere on wikipedia, could you point me to them?

Also, what does the 'at venus' above your name refer to? thanks 66.235.35.207 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your last message? How do I make an account? Is there a subscription fee? 66.235.35.207 06:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a nice image, either one that you made yourself, or one that is not limited by copyright issues (Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted images), you can upload them without a problem. At the left, under the search, you have a series of linke, inclusing one that says Upload file. Just follow the instructions, choose the appropriate license (easy ones are GNU GFDL (self made) or related). With that, you give away the copyright and make it possible that anyone in the world will use it, and you can not prohibite that. After you have done that, you can replace the image, and I think you are right, a better imnage would be nice (especially of a wild color individual).

As for the second question, many people at the internet assume that everybody is male, but woman come from venus (men come from mars), so I added that as to indicate that I am a girl/woman.

It is 100% FREE! And at the right upper corner, there is a link that you can use. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biopsych

Thanks for your message. I appreciate your sentiments and am grateful for your advice to Cesar. I have a lot of time for him as an editor - and as a person - in the brief time i have interacted with him. I'm frustrated at myself as much as him, for the way that the Arbitration is progressing. I do feel he was unfairly been dragged into something due to his unfortunate alliance with Ombudsman. Nevertheless, having interacted with him in Anti-psychiatry and now biological psychiatry, i'm also concerned that is strong advocacy means he genuinely struggles to distinguish between fact and opinion on this subject. I think unless he can accept that and try and take a step back from the "us v them" viewpoint, he is going to continue to come into conflict and next time WP:BITE will not hold up. As he does not seem to accept it himself, I'm hoping that ArbCom will find a way of instilling that gently, without resorting to bans.

The irony here is that i have little interest in the field of psychiatry myself, originally only coming to it on a cleanup drive, and then, having worked with him previously, i was asked back to try and reason with Cesar when he began tagging with Ombudsman. I myself tried to take a middle ground but now i find myself trading accusations at ArbCom with the person that i'd hoped to help avoid taking there! I guess i felt it is a somewhat necesary after Cesar decided against a newbie defence to run with the revisionist FDA angle. Anyway, sorry to come over here and bend your ear over this, but i feel you are doing a sterling job on councilling Cesar so i thought i would at least try and explain myself. Best. Rockpocket (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Very perceptive of you, once again. I'd fully support a mentorship in the manner you propose, also.

I'm not too bothered about getting my knuckles rapped by ArbCom. My contribution to the article itself was only the proposition and drafting of the criticism section - so i'm hopeful that the Arbitrators are smart enough to see that - but its a new experience for me also, so perhaps i deserve a warning too. Who knows. I think some of the other editors were taking too hard a line in the other direction, as evidenced by trying to find a middle ground during the discussions, so would support an intermediate solution. I think that is the way it is going anyway. I think will refrain from communicating directly with Cesar now, as i don't think he is receptive to my comments and our discussions are becoming confrontational to noone's benefit. Good luck with your mentorship idea - and do let me know if i can help in anyway. Rockpocket (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi KvdL. If i may be so bold, now might be a good to to propose that mentorship you mentioned [2]. It appears the concept of WP:V and WP:NPOV still have not hit home, even after you warned him. False accusations of vandalism and stalking on a ArbCom page is not going to do his case any good whatsoever. Rockpocket (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Psittacula.jpg

Hrm.... The scientific names should be in italics. Otherwise it's a nice image. My only problem in using images to convey data is that when the data changes, the image must change as well. Primates has a phylogeny on it done purely in Wikicode, which anyone can update as our understanding changes. Your images can not be modified by just anyone - they need tools external to Wikipedia to be editted. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have to dig into the code to make it italics. You can always leave the wikicode version commented out, and if there is a change, and the image can not be changed, you can always go back to that version. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(I'm wtaching now.) True, but I'd bet most folks wouldn't leave it there just comented out. Either the image would get deleted from the article as being out of date, leaving the article with no phylogeny tree, or the image would stay, even though its outdated. I'd rather something that is edittable by the common wiki editor, even if it takes some work at understanding the underlying wikicode. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would just place a hidden comment in the text with the instruction. But that is me, I understand that you have a different preference. Personally, I find those coded things confusing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Textbook suggestion?

I see that you are an evolutionary biologist and a self-described "academic." Could you please suggest a few general texts on evolutionary biology that might be appropriate for someone with a decent background (some grad level) in molecular bio and genetics? I am very interested in the topic but don't know how to go about evaluating the texts that are out there. I am a fairly visually oriented person and find that the quality of graphs and charts makes a real difference to my understanding of materials so if you know of a text with good visuals, I would most appreciate it. This is a LOW PRIORITY request. I just want a readable text for my own purposes and it doesn't matter if you don't get around to answering this for several months or even skip it all together! Thanks. Ande B 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion of the Futuyama text. I've seen this text mentioned but didn't realize that it was such a recent publication. I will check it out soon. I hope the local college bookstore has this in stock. Ande B 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural Selection

Ok first realize what the defintion of a Scientific Fact is and a Scientific Theory, because that is important to understanding what Natural Selection is. Thats like saying that Gravity is a fact not a theory, which it indeed is. Natural selection is the Scientific theory that is one of the many factors that proves that Evolution is indeed a fact. And its not up for me to prove to you whether natural selection is a only a theory, its yet to be proven so therefor it cant be considered a fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redsox19488 (talk • contribs).

Thats all you have to say why not substantiate why natural selection is not a theory instead of saying your wrong it seem that you know not of what your talking about it appears to me that you need to asses the ideas of which you determine that natural selection is a fact. Plus I believe that you should asses the ideals by which you edit the page because it is unfair for you to determine that it is indeed a fact due to your inept beliefs. I believe this is a biased statement in defense of your ideas. I mean not to scrutinize you I just think that you should show an unbiased view of something that I myself believe to be true. However for the sake of the causal person in such a time where comprehension of the truth is influential in the beliefs of evolution and creationism or intelligent design, I believe that your actions are unjust. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redsox19488 (talk • contribs).

I wish to express the sincerest apology, it was not meant to connote the idea of evolution as a theory as it indeed is a fact, however Natural Selection is a scientific theory and should be treated as that, and I would appreciate if you would do so—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redsox19488 (talk • contribs).

[edit] CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship

Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - Corbin ^{Be excellent}

[edit] Template:Wdefcon

I've restored the TFD notice to this template, as the tfd debate on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 24 is not closed. Did I miss something here? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I just updated it to a direct link to the current tfd page as tfd has gotten huge lately. The original nominator did not put the tfd template anywhere useful, that's why the date is off. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Saw your acceptance, and have listed you Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#KimvdLinde. Good luck, these things can be hairy sometimes, but you've seen enough other to see that by now :) — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The edit counts creep up when your not looking, at least it's a good sign you dont have editcountitis! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing horse care

Hi, I saw your message, thanks for the hint. As you can see I haven't done that much editing, and I was so enthusiastic to tell the world about horses :) Should I re-word the language so that it is descriptive rather than instructive, or scrap the instructive bits altogether? Thankies! Ashfan83 11:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are most welcome

RC Patrolling is a good way to get myself ready to sleep...=). Keep up your great work!!! Kukini 05:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That same newby is at it still, just blanked my talk page. Kukini 05:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I reported the vandal. Once you have a mop, this will be a tad easier. Kukini 05:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] natural selection

If Marcosantezana ever screws around with the article, please let me know ASAP., Slrubenstein | Talk 11:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oral Sex

Given that the vast majority of human beings are heterosexual, I think you should respect this fact by not insisting that the homosexual images remain on the oral sex article.--128.235.249.80 13:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this image for all the poor upset hetero's at Oral Sex? Image:Blowjobs.jpg? If it is not appropriate please go ahead and delete it.... →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NfA

Just wanted you to know I hope you win!—Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Thanks, Kim. Will do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So did you. I think we're thinking along the same lines. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problem with your edit to my FfA

Due to an error of mine while constructing the page your edit to my RfA went to my draft page. I have fixed the discuss here button. HighInBC 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi KvdL. Seems your RfA is going well (though i'm rather horrified at some of the oppose justifications, i'm confident the closing 'crat will see them for what they are). I understand you may be busy at the moment, but if you are inclined and have a chance, i would really appreciate your opinion on an article i'm trying to get to good (or even, eventually, featured) article status: chromatophore. I'm looking for a non-specialist scientist's perspective as its sometimes difficult to tell how clear the concepts have been explained when you are overly familiar with the subject. I understand if you are too busy, however. Best. Rockpocket 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, it seems to go well. The requirement is not 100% votes, but consensus that someone should get it, and it seems to go that way. As of the remarks, well that is the price one has to pay for working at controversial topics.

I will have a look later this long weekend. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, i appreciate it. Rockpocket 21:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the small references, i never knew how to do that. Looks much better now. Rockpocket 05:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Kim. I agree with most of them. Unfortunately i'm so used to writing for specialist audiences that i sometimes struggle to simplify concepts for a more general audience. I think i'll try to structure better as you proposed, a section at a time. Thanks again. Rockpocket 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oral sex reversion

I read carefully the links you provided and looked at other Islamic sites. The result is my last edit on the Oral sex page. As for the fact that the IP is from Saudi Arabia - like many other things, being from Saudi Arabia can make somebody very competent on the relevant issue - but very partial as well. :) --85.187.44.131 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it was an improvement, ultimately. --85.187.44.131 03:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hernando Cortez

His contributions are getting very... interesting. With the oppose vote on your RfA, he now pretty much exactly duplicates Lou's edit pattern. Except the first few edits, which were minor copyediting... and that's something I find very intriguing. Judging by his edits to talk space, you'd think English was not his first language, yet he didn't make a single mistake in his copyedits.

I think there is a real possibility that Lou created a sockpuppet at the time when there were four vs one arbitrators against him, did some minor copyediting to cloud the issue, left messages to himself to make it look like meatpuppetry, and 'disguised his handwriting' in the simplest form possible - writing like a child. I'd like to get your opinion about whether it's time for a CheckUser, though. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, after Phr's comment [3] I think it's time to clear this up once and for all. It involves digging into private data, true, but it's not going to be revealed publicly. I think it's the lesser of two evils, the greater being continued poisonous speculation. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Question?

When you get the time, I've left a question for you at your admin vote page. Thanks. 59.20.72.35 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Programmed Evolution

This is pure speculation, but probably a virus infected a bacteria providing it with error-prone polymerase(s), and by chance the bacteria instead of becoming sick, integrated it into its genome under a promoter regulated by ss-DNA presence (as it is now). This "gene" then had an improved level of survival (since it "helped" bacteria instead of hurting it) under the "selfish gene" paradigm.

I can imagine other ways of it happening.

--Takometer 19:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Natural selection

I have foolishly tried to start a discussion on Talk:Natural selection concerning the definition of natural selection. I know you have stated you won't discuss anything with me, but if you have time, I'd like you to contribute. Think of it not so much as responding to me as to making the natural selection entry the best possible. Thanks. Ted 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I know the last thing you want is to participate in yet another discussion of natural selection. I have also been told that by others. However, I sensed some of the old problems, as the article gets changed from day to day. Your views will be missed. If you happen to have the inclination at some time, please do stop by. Ted 19:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F.O.E.

If you have any evidence that F.O.E. may be a sockpuppet, please let me know and I'll be happy to help track it down. Ladlergo 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?

Maybe it's my browser, but the link you dropped on my talk page isn't linking to anything other than itself. Also, please use headers and sign your posts. Cheers. IronDuke 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please clarify. I do not understand what you're suggesting. IronDuke 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see, you mean a different style of linking. Sure, I have no objection, I guess, although I prefer a link you can click right on that takes you right there, otherwise, you have to keep the footnote number in mind... IronDuke 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email?

Kim, hi. I wonder if I could ask your opinion off-Wiki about something I've written? It has to do with the userbox controversy. Would an email be cool? I think you'll understand why I'm being circumspect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Action is undertaken!

Really? When is that going to happen, and who is doing it? How is Idiomyia (or the others for that matter) going to be defined morphologically? KarlM 07:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 500+ species

I was in the process of going back to clarify that when you wrote. It's a minimum, as there are at least 200 that have been collected but not described. I've gotten 20 myself in a relatively small area. There's an often-quoted figure that there are likely to be over 1000 total (including Scaptomyza), but I think that might be a little high. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility though.

Also, there are quite a few species outside of Hawaii with patterned wings (more than I had realized). Even immigrans has marks, albeit faint ones. I put one up on the page as an example. Unfortunately the better pictures are not mine to post, but if you'd like I can email them to you. When I get some better pictures scanned in (and get around to it) I'll do a separate page on the Hawaiian drosophilids. KarlM 07:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changing type of Drosophila to D. melanogaster

I'm guessing this won't be easy. There is no valid nomenclatural reason to change the name except that D.mel is what everyone associates with the name Drosophila, and that probably won't cut it. Especially since there is a valid generic name (Sophophora) for it, whereas there isn't one (or is there?) for the funebris group. KarlM 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratualtions on your admin promotion!!! You were the first person I've had up for nomination (I kept getting beat to others!), if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Some pages you may find helpful are: Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and of course WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And now you get use a new box too Template:User wikipedia/Administrator and if you would like to, feel free to use {{User:Xaosflux/Admin}} to put a meta-icon on your userpage (see xaosflux top right corner for an example. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well. Let me know if you need any help learning to use those new buttons :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats Pete.Hurd 05:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done and congratulations also. Now the hard work begins ;) Rockpocket 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And from me too. :) Gleng 08:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on your acquiring mop and cluestick. Well done. AvB ÷ talk 08:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck for the future! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bah, it seems I didn't save my congratulatory edit for your promotion, but better late than never. Please be conservative with the new tools, especially at first, and re-read the relevant policies as needed. I see you've been busy, so keep up the good work, and have fun. - Taxman ^Talk 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian {T C @} 07:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Bardia National Park

It may be the correct name, but Bardia National Park is where all the history from creating the article was. --Rory096 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rory096 04:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adventures in sleep deprivation

Hey Kim, I'm doing well, tired, got the flu, my daughter seems to be nocturnal. Good luck with adminship, reminds me a bit of that quip, "be careful what you wish for..." -Cheers, Pete.Hurd 06:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop

7) Just as bans by the Arbitration Committee can only be undone in interaction with and approval of the Arbitration Committee, community bans can only be undone in interaction with and approval of the community, or as a result of a decision by the Arbitration Committee.

What about:

7) Community bans may only be made after interaction with the community on WP:AN/I and with the community's support, and may only be undone after similar community interaction and support (or by a decision of the Arbitration Committee). This is consistent with the way that Arbitration Committee bans are made and undone with Arbitration Committee interaction and support.

I'd like the case to come up with some guidelines as to how community bans may be made as well as ended - Blu Aardvark's community ban was done entirely properly, I'm concerned that some others have not been, and obviously there was no community consensus for the lifting of the ban. I don't think "if one admin wants to unblock, the community ban no longer exists" is reasonable any more, if it ever was. --ajn (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ichtiology terms

Really? I had no idea, I just knew I had spelled it wrong when I created it and wanted to correct the error :) →ΣcoPhreek_▼ 22:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks →ΣcoPhreek_▼ 22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A haiku of thanks (and some congratulations too!)

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

Thanks so much for your support, and congratulations on your also recently successful request for adminship! I'm sure we will both have fun learning the ropes, and being mistaken for guys. ;)

-- Natalya 03:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Hi Kim,

Congrats on your successful promotion to adminship! You'll be a great one! :) --Firsfron 07:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Leuk dat je een nieuwe admin bent. Je hebt zeker goed werk gedaan. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 07:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 08:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats.--Jusjih 09:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, welcome!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To those who voted: "You have chosen... wisely..." :D RadioKirk talk to me 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Congrats on your RFA! ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 14:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Piling on congrats to you Kim!!! -- Kukini 14:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kim, thanks for your note and I'd like to add to the congrats. I was thinking of dropping you a note anyway, but you did to me first. I have no problem with the overwhelming community consensus, although I didn't feel able to add to it while we were in the middle of a misunderstanding. That's all. Tyrenius 17:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

May you wield the mop well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling and content disputes

Interesting question. I have been involved in contentious and difficult situations earlier in life and have developed my own means of dealing with them. I would distinguish between a genuine content dispute and trolling. Certainly I have found it is not usually helpful to be directly challenging, as it only makes people more rigid. As soon as the warning signs are there of something going in this direction, I take alternative action. An edit dispute on Saatchi Gallery went as far as I would take things. I realised things weren't going to be resolved with the other editor(s). In this case I called in a third party who was involved in other art articles, and posted the advice. On that occasion the disputing editors simply vanished.

Each situation requires its own tactics, but if there's a couple of reverts, I tend to simply leave it for a week or whatever to let things settle down. What I try to avoid is getting locked into a stand-off with someone. In fact, I refuse to get involved in an edit war, and I refuse to reduce things to a personal level, which I have noticed things are often reduced to on talk pages for articles where there is a dispute. I respond to RfCs for third party comments, and have listed some of these on my user page. One such was Xeni Jardin. After a lot of dialogue with the involved editors I proposed a consensus agreement which was accepted by the editors.

That's just fyi as you raised the question, and it's not a comment on anything you might have been involved in, nor were my comments on your RfA—they were limited to my question, which went in a direction I wasn't expecting. Let us say that all's well that ends well. Tyrenius 17:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ricardo Lagos

I think there is a case for {{subst:Usernameblock}} because unproper username (see article of same name Ricardo Lagos). Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcos

Hi Kim - It looks like the arbcom case will be closed soon (finally!). I was going to suggest that you not block Marcos for any violations despite your ability to do so. I don't have a good sense for the current climate, but 6 months ago there was a real move that admins who had content disputes with editors should never block them. I'm confident that you wouldn't do anything out of line, but I thought maybe, as a new admin, you might want to know that some folks could get a little ruffled. (It won't bother me if you block him, however.) Anyway, thought I would give you a heads up. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, I suspect he was following the arbcom case and realized his days here were numbered. I wouldn't be surprised if he turned up anonymously once and a while. Re: Lagos. I think that definitely classifies as inappropriate, unless that is actually his name. You can reference WP:UN, which specifically prohibits choosing names of famous people "Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including ... Names of well-known living people (e.g Chuck Norris)." --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's puppet

Whay are you so puppet to Jimbo?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.84.124.246 (talk • contribs) 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I just try to build an encyclopedia. Even Jimbo has the right to an encyclopedia article without unreliable sources and speculation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Guettarda 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Gerin

It's hard to say. He has a match scheduled for June 18, and if he loses that, some pundits will view it as proof that the rumours are true. Until then, I think the rumours will remain fairly consistent, because the story hasn't been mentioned by most mainstream wrestling websites for weeks now. McPhail 16:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

..for protecting the Moldovans page. Can you also protect Talk:Moldovans as well? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anything be done about User:Bonaparte in this sense? He keeps popping up. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's the same problem than with User:Gibraltarian. He/she simply keeps coming back. I guess they like the attention too :o) E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser complete

You made a request for a Checkuser to be run, which has now been completed. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Completed_requests for the results. the wub "?!" 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Hi, this is GreenLanternDC - ChildrensCrusade, NocturnalAdmission, IWashMyselfWithaRagonaStick, and CentipediaNES were all me. I didn't want others confused that they might belong to NerfSpecialForces. Please change them back, if possible. - GreenLanternDC

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

This arbitration case is closed. The final decision is at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou

hey kim, thankyou for unblocking.. :) really appriciate that.. --Sartaj beary 03:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure...will do :)--Sartaj beary 03:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Kim, thank you for tidying the barnstars on my user page. I spent ages struggling with them yesterday. Now at last I can see how to keep them in rows. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Would you please clarify the contradiction you've entraped yourself on Requests_for_page_protection#Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy. Raphael1 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli apartheid

Edit warring has flared up at Israeli apartheid (phrase)72.60.226.91 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] protection of Israeli apartheide

I think there is no way to hope that consesnus woul;d emarge on talk.

The reply to talk is usually an edit by homey.

He is asking for protection cause that is his only way to keep the article the way he wants it while not risking 3RR (he revrted few times already today) so don't endorse his version of the article. Why don'y uou ask him to participate in talk ?

He has answered this note on talk: Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Fertile_land with this edit waring [4] which was dishonest (see : Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#Another_dishonest_edit_by_homey

Zeq 19:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin's User page

Hey KimvdLinde. I'm having trouble understanding why you would revert SlimVirgin on her own User page. Is there some technical reason I'm not aware of? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. --digital_me^(t/c) 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Jeb Bush

Eek, you're right. I would've miscounted due to the intervening reversions. Thanks for the warning. Powers 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

After checking, it appears I did miscount and am in violation of the 3RR. I'm going to put myself on a 12-hour editing moratorium as punishment. Powers 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gentle word please

Hi Kim. Could you please take a very gentle look at the homeopathy Talk page, and if you think that T.J.C. s comments there cross a line. Nothing heavy, but it's a page that is to say the least fractious and robust and there are some newbie editors who don't need to be bitten. Peter morrell (despite his comments about me) will be a very good editor once he settles into WP ethos, and I think he will quickly, but the abuse level is racking up towards him (and another non-english speaking editor). I've left comments on both their pages, but advice from outside would be cool and constructive. Sorry to impose. Gleng 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy with your advice

I am very happy for your advice on my talk page. I am new to the Wikipeadia and it is possible that due to ignorence I do mistakes. However I go several times to see about my writtings and try to correct and perfect them because I think that the information must be foolproof and 100% correct. It is essential for the reference purposes. When I am in doubt, I do'nt write unless and until the doubtful matter is not confirmed by the sources. You have full right for correction and I request you if there is any mistake you find, better you correct it like font or bold letter. I am 62 years old Medical Practitioner, practicing in Modern Western Medicine, Ayurved, Homoeopathy, Unani, Naturecure, Physiotherapy and other healing arts simulataneouly. I have wast experience in the AYURVED and Homoepathy because Forefathers were traditional healers, I belongs to the fifth generation. With this I have Interest in many subjects and where I see in the pages of Wikipedia for inclusion of the important information, I do. Kindly make correction if you need to correct. I thank you for drawing my attention to mistakes. User:Dbbajpai1945@sify.com

[edit] Horse sport

Hi,

Completely agree with moving it, had just logged on to do so! Thought about a small paragraph listing different horse sports, with links to the relevant pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mistress G (talk • contribs).

[edit] un reasonable edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=57296607&oldid=57056606

The page is under protection. There is no consenus to anything in this page not its name, not it's content nothing. The most logical step if you want to wait for consenus is the delete the page and wait for consensus to emagge. Why ?

Because current content and current name is something one group favor. Under such conditions this group has no motivewhatsoever to agree to any compromise on any other issue. Please revert this edit or deleting the article until consesnus emarge. Thank you. Zeq 10:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, arguing that a page that has survived an AFD should be deleted "until consensus emerges" shows a flagrant disregard or ignorance of Wikipedia procedures.Homey 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page under protection is similar. Clearly there is no consensus with anything in this page including if it should even exist. Zeq 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I seems I have to play everything 100% by the rules from now on. And I will do that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli apartheid

Kim, the poll hasn't even been up for a day and only four people have "voted". I think you should give it a bit more time!Homey 14:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And it's not 3-3. If you look at one of the opposing comments he was actually opposed to both (phrase) *and* (political epithet). Again, give it more time. You comment has effectively ended the "vote". Homey 14:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations (a little late)

I understand your point, however, the article has just survived an AFD under the name Israeli apartheid (phrase) and there was certainly no conensus in the poll for renaming it. Humus moved it unilaterally without any discussion. Therefore, I believe that with no consensus the default name for the article needs to be Israeli apartheid (phrase) and it should be moved back there in the mean time. Homey 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Seckel

Thanks for checking in. I've replied on my talk page, OK? Thatcher131 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your tremendous help with Al Seckel. Have a cookie on me. Thatcher131 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Kim. I've gone over the current talk page and article and there are some parts that need to be cleaned up.

• On Talk:Al Seckel, 4:03, June 8, 2006 AlSeckel (→POV check) is the first version with a personal attack; everything from 15:36, June 8, 2006 Thatcher131 (→Completeness - removing personal attacks) on forward is clean.

• On Al Seckel there are two short ranges of versions with problematic claims. A potentially libelous claim is inserted at 8:14, June 5, 2006 67.20.104.67 (→Freethought movement) and finally removed by me at 01:31, June 6, 2006 Thatcher131 (→Freethought movement - remove unsourced allegations about misrepresenting his credentials, see talk page). The claim is reinserted at 04:39, June 6, 2006 Tmciver (→Freethought movement) and removed by me at 05:29, June 6, 2006 Thatcher131 (removing allegations of misconduct based on original research, you can not include this). There are a few good versions between 01:31 and 04:39 but they're mostly mine and if its easier to delete across that span then I don't care. Thanks. Thatcher131 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I also need you to remove everything on User talk:Thatcher131/Archive2 after the page move archive on 02:34, June 7, 2006 and to delete every version of my current talk page except the most recent by me (22:59, June 8, 2006). Thanks! Thatcher131 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)