User talk:Usenetpostsdotcom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Not a Puppet (this time) (probably) 3 Welcome of sorts 4 WP:CIVIL 5 Images 6 Pseudorinelepis 7 Monospecific 8 Thank you! 9 Your claims against me 10 Monospecificity 11 Just as an aside 12 Languages

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Usenetpostsdotcom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Jason Gastrich 09:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Puppet (this time) (probably)

If this is indeed THE Uncle Davey, then this particular time Gastrich is not guilty of Sock Puppetry.

Davey is there to protect Gastrich from the consequences of his actions and to feed his megalomania. Davey is around pretending to toady to Gastrich, but is in fact not only not a puppet, but the opposite of a puppet.

Harvestdancer 16:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that, Harvestdancer.

You too, being someone who publicises private correspondence, are also the opposite of a puppet. I never saw a puppet who did that.

Tell me, when the Age of Aquarius is with us, will we all be able to stamp on other people's confidences, or will it continue just to be zero-integrity persons who do that?

And the reason I haven't don't a userpage - to answer all the people on that debate who thought that was somehow prima facie evidence against me being a real human being - is that I am short of time, to learn all the niceties of this system. No doubt I'll get to it. In the meantime, if anyone is clever enough to figure out what "usenetpostsdotcom" signifies, they will find out all that they need to about my person. Uncle Davey 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the Age of Aquarius? Sounds rather Pagan. --Malthusian (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It is pagan. Harvestdancer is a self-confessed practising Witch, so he is an authority about it. I read that it is supposed to be going on right now, but I have no knowledge of what it entails. Uncle Davey 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Read about it in Wikipedia Astrology. Harvestdancer 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, Uncle Davey, here to make sure that if Gastrich's behavior is called to question, Davey will sheild Gastrich from the moral of the experience. Nope, nothing to learn about how actions have consequences - it really was one big conspiracy of non-believers. You are more responsible for Gastrich thinking he could get away with his POV pushing at Wikipedia than anybody else I know, because you fed his ego every time he offended others.

If he offends others, and they take offense, you tell him they took offense because they hate Jesus and Jason and not to worry about it. You make sure he doesn't grow as long as he listens to you.

I read the correspondence between the pair of you which he publicised, and whilst you appeared sincere at the start of it, you failed to address all the things he brought up, and in the end you lost more face than he did by publicising it. It is my opinion that you and the rest of Zazu's gang know very well that he is an worthwhile target, as he is very straightforward and doesn't worry about not offending people as long as the message gets out, and he is likely to be used by God. That's why you follow him with your contrived propaganda kit about him all around the internet, getting on his back over every little thing he does. If you were sure he were really offensive, then surely you would be hapy to let him get on with alienating people from the gospel - or are you really a Christian in disguise only pretending to be a Wiccan and really trying your best to curb people who might put people off believing the gospel?--Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You really don't understand my motive? I care about religion, not just my religion. I do try to assist others in actually following their own faith, which is why I tried to help Gastrich but cannot help you. You don't qualify.

You think my not keeping my correspondence under a bushel basket makes me look bad? I'm not the one who insists that any and every criticism be delted post haste in an effort to appear stainless.

It's not about Gastrich me objecting to Gastrich getting the message out. It's about me objecting to Gastrich NOT getting the message out. He's not getting the message out, and every time his own behavior turns people off, you quickly assure him that it's their fault, not his, that his offenses offended them.

You do far more harm to Gastrich than his critics ever could.

As a Wiccan, I am compelled to be a healer when I can, which is why I tried to attend to Gastrich. That takes faith, to administer to people of other faiths without trying to convert them. That takes belief, something alien to you.

By the way, there is no Cabal. Harvestdancer 05:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to try to manipulate me, at least don't insult my intelligence by being so transparent about it. "You do far more harm to Gastrich than his critics ever could" yeah, right. If you thought so, you would be happy. Try to be sincere one time.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sincere. If I were trying to manipulate you, I wouldn't be so obvious. I'm just telling it like it is - you prod JG by telling him that when people are offended by his methods (not his message) that they are really offended by his message and that they hate Jesus and Jason. It's simply not true. You tell him the lie that puffs up his ego. You know it too - I'm just stating it outright where Jason could possibly see it. You're pretty clever, I'll grant that.

I'm not "out to get" Gastrich. That's another lie. I'm actually out to help him do for real what he thinks he's doing. You're keeping him from being the missionary he wants to be with your lies, to the point where he is now blinded by hubris - a hubris you contributed to. What is your real game? Harvestdancer 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you two put your handbags away? Some of us are trying to build an encyclopaedia here. --Malthusian (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK, OK. But note how the Wiccan does his utmost to drive a wedge between friends by making out I'm trying to pull Jason's strings.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, revealing someone's real name on Wikipedia is also considered a violation. Harvestdancer 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to remember that.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So you can do it again? Harvestdancer 05:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you give me that lip, matey.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Honesty hurts? Harvestdancer 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It must do you, since you cannot even sign you work. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just found out what happens if you use the incorrect number of tildes. Harvestdancer 23:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome of sorts

Regarding the RfC, evidence isn't signed.

On that theme, sorry I thought you were a sockpuppet. Although I don't agree with what you said on the RfC, and I'm still disturbed by your Usenet comments, you do at least seem a bit saner than Gastrich, and maybe, unlike him, you'll be capable of checking your POV (point of view) and outside disputes at the door. Read his RfC, and learn from his mistakes. If you can't keep your beliefs from affecting your editing, then your best bet is to avoid religion-related articles altogether. There are hundreds of thousands of others.

One editing tip to start off with: sign your name with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you'd rather appear as 'Uncle Davey' rather than 'Usenetpostsdotcom', then go to 'my preferences' at the top of every page, and change the 'Nickname' field to something like this: [[User:Usenetpostsdotcom|Uncle Davey]]. That particular one will make your signature appear as Uncle Davey, which still links to your normal user page. --Malthusian (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. I will try to implement it. I don't know why my sig is black when everyone elses is blue, though. Uncle Davey 09:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Either you're writing your sig out longhand instead of using the four tildes ~~~~, or your 'nickname' in 'my preferences' is set to plain 'Uncle Davey', instead of [[User:Usenetpostsdotcom|Uncle Davey]]. The latter uses your name as a 'piped link' to your user page, and like any wikilink, that makes it appear blue. --Malthusian (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Another option is to put the following into the nickname section [[User:Usenetpostsdotcom|Uncle Davey]] [[User talk:Usenetpostsdotcom|(Talk)]] you will get a signature as followed Uncle Davey (Talk) when you sign with the four tildes ~~~~. David D. (Talk) 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both David Day and Malthusian for that advice - if it works then it will show up now, I dare say. Uncle Davey (Talk) 10:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

Regarding this: [1] Please take the time to read and learn WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, and I know I was near the knuckle, but is it OK for her to have said "he's doing this petty crap ...." - wasn't that a personal attack? Was that civil? Yes, two wrongs don't make a right, but I hope you admonish both sides the same. Uncle Davey 09:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• You'll be here all week if you start playing the "He said" "Well she said" game. Gastrich has been, and it hasn't got him anywhere. Whatever you do on Usenet, don't fight his battles here, they're losing ones. --Malthusian (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your friendly advice. In essence, I am not so interested in winning or losing battles, and more in speaking the Truth.

I am not keen on the initiative that we have here, BTW. Having prayed about it I would be just as happy if we withdrew. If not, then this resource, which is valued by people all over the world, will be harmed and everyone will make sure it is seen as all our fault. I am hoping that somneone will start a separate wiki project where we can talk about Christian themes under our own control, without getting into all the overspill from Usenet battles and infidelguy.com battles that we have got into here.

I would rather negotiate an exit pact whereby if Warrior Scribe and his group either stop posting or post edits in unrelated issues, where we have not appeared then I will do my best to see that our Group follows suit.

If not, then I can tell you from history that the energy and time that both these groups have when fighting each other could be very detrimental, even to a project this size. And I don't think the project deserves to become the battleground for this.

We will always speak the Truth, they will always counter with what they believe is the truth, and you simply cannot get a more stalemate situation than when this happens, unless it is diffused somehow. Uncle Davey 09:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Davey you don't understand. If your supposed usenet foes did not change your edits others would. You cannot edit with POV, as Jason has been doing, and expect them to survive. So stop looking for fights. Jason knows exactly what he is doing and i'm sure he is not surprised by the results. David D. (Talk) 09:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, so using phrases like 'withdrawal' and 'negotiating an exit pact' are somewhat inappropriate. There will be no compromise between fundamentalist points of view and Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Now if atheists were vandalizing and otherwise disrupting Wikipedia to the same degree as Gastrich, then there might be need for mediation. But this RfC has been open for several days, Gastrich (and to a lesser extent Itake) have continuously claimed that their opponents are the POV warriors and not them, but they have been utterly unable to provide any evidence of doing so to the degree necessary to sustain an RfC of their own, and the consensus of the community (seen by those endorsing the Outside and Inside Views with their signatures) is overwhelmingly that Gastrich is a lone windmill-tilter and not one side in a war. --Malthusian (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does it always have to be "we?" You take umbrage when people call you a "sycophant" yet you say you don't want to be here. Do you do everything he tells you to do? If you don't want to be here, leave. Go do something else. There already are Christian Wikis. Further, you two could start your own. The software that runs this one is freely available. I have a copy myself and it's not all that hard to set up.

There is no "Warrior Scribe and his group." There are upwards of four whole people here who know what you mean by "Usenet battles and infidelguy.com battles" (and that's counting you and Gastrich). Maybe a staggering number of two or three more have a familiarity with one or both incidents. Maybe. On the other hand, there are well over two dozen names on the RfC. That should tell you something.

Not to mention, in both cases of the "battles" you bring up, Gastrich was the one who went into an atheist community, knowing it was an atheist community. Going into an atheist community swinging a Bible is to be deliberately trying to provoke a fight. The results were as inevitable as the sun rising in the East. If you don't like that there's fall out from those fights, ask him why he started them.

There's nothing to "negotiate." The rules here are the rules here. You're going to have to face up to the fact that Gastrich made these people mad. He broke their rules. It's not Dave Horn behind the curtains pushing the buttons and levers. The rules of this community predate you, they predate Gastrich, they predate me, they predate Dave. They're also binding on all of us if we want to stick around. That's how it works. If there's anything to "negotiate" it's in the sense of "to succeed in going over or coping with." That is, learning the rules and conventions and how to work within them. Otherwise, go download the wiki software and start one of your own.

There's no one to "negotiate" with. There is no cabal. If you think anybody's giving me orders, you got another think coming. I definitely don't give orders. The whole idea of "followers" creeps me out. If I had a "group" and they wanted "orders," the only one I'd give is "get the hell outta here you freaks!"

And, really, let's can the overblown sense of importance shall we? If this did become some knock-down, drag-out, Usenet style fight, they'd just bounce us all and say to each other "whew, glad that's over" and get back to what they were doing. The Wiki would go on. Not you, nor Gastrich, nor I, nor Horn are that important. It's time for a reality check.

Finally, what does "the initiative that we have here" mean? Contributing is quite obviously welcomed here. But an "initiative" is going to result in a backlash. Or more correctly has resulted in a backlash. When something doesn't work, the solution is rarely "do more."

Mark K. Bilbo 04:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

To upload images to Wikipedia, simply click 'Upload file' on the left hand side of every page. Make sure that what you upload is appropriately licensed or it will be deleted. Wikipedia:Images has a good background, more information on licensing can be found at here, and the picture tutorial is a good place to start on how to incorporate them in articles. As for adding new information about fish, be bold. The worst that can happen after any edit is that it gets reverted. Certainly the fact that something is on an external website (if that's what 'Fishbase' is) shouldn't prevent you from adding it to Wikipedia. Being bold also goes for correcting something that's already there if you think it's wrong, but leave an appropriate edit summary and start a discussion on the talk page if your reasoning is too long to fit. --Malthusian (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It would help me if you could look at my first attempt at an article from scratch [2]] and give me the low down on how to make it more classy.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, a smaller image should be used to illustrate the page. My preference would be for a thumbnail on the right with a caption, like this:

This was generated with the following code: [[Image:Pineapplepleco.png|thumb|right|I am a fish]]. Just copy and paste that, using an appropriate caption. If someone clicks on it they can see the high-res version.

Your text is generally good, but you've included a few references to yourself, something that should not be done in an encyclopaedia article. E.g. "one of my pair", "to my knowledge", and especially your signature. Never sign articles. Every article should look as if anyone could have written it, even when there's actually only one editor.

Also think about wikilinking some words by surrounding them with [[double square brackets]]. Wikipedia:Build_the_web has a good way of describing this - link upwards to broader concepts like 'Fish' and 'Amazon', and sideways to things that relate to it like 'pineapple'. Don't just randomly wikilink words.

You might also want to look at another fish article (e.g. Goldfish) and note the 'infobox' on the side. The infobox is a standard template for basic information for all animals. If you go to 'edit' for that page, right at the top you should see the code for the infobox, and you could copy and paste that into your own article, changing all the names and the picture. That would in fact remove the need to fiddle with the placement of your own image - the infobox would take care of that. Template code can be annoying, so feel free to leave that bit for someone else.

I'm willing to have a go at making the above changes myself if you want, but thought you might like to try these ideas out first. --Malthusian (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudorinelepis

Excellent start. I think you'll find a lot of people willing to help you now, plus be a lot more friendly. Let me know if you have problems with templates or editing style. It took mne a while to figure out a lot of the formatting tricks. David D. (Talk) 17:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And thanks to Malthusian, since between the two of you you have got me past the initial hurdles. And I could swear that fish on the photo was looking over my shoulder egging me on as well, as I keep them in the office now. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Any time. --Malthusian (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, how do I get anti-smoking and anti drugs templates? Is there a list of templates anywhere? Is there an accountants' template? TIA--Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Job done. Wikipedia:Userbox has an index of userboxes for future reference. Since 'no smoking' isn't the same as 'anti-smoking' I 'subst'ed your 'no smoking' box: that is, instead of entering {{User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/User non-smoker}} I entered {{subst:user_non-smoker}}, replacing it with the raw code. This means it won't be changed if the central Template:User_non-smoker is changed, but you can change the text in the box to what you like. There doesn't seem to be an accountancy userbox - perhaps you could create your own? --Malthusian (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and there's a stronger anti-drugs template if you'd prefer that: {{user Drug-opposed}} --Malthusian (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks Malthusian. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you've gotten off to a fantastic start with this article. One concern that I have: please review WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Basically, every fact on wikipedia has to be available elsewhere in a reputable source - and cannot derive from, for example, your experience in owning one of these fish.

For example, in the earliest version of the article you wrote that you personally are not aware of cases of spawning in captivity. This version says that spawning in captivity has not been reliably reported. The only way wikipedia can say this is if there is a reliable reference -- see WP:RS - that says that spawning in captivity has not been reported. If you have not read of any cases of spawning in captivity, but also have not seen a reliable source saying that no reliable reports of spawning in captivity exist, that sentence ought to be deleted.

When thinking of how to expand the article, I'd suggest inserting citations for every fact listed. This does not necessarily mean inserting a link after each fact - inserting a "references" section at the bottom would suffice. Thank you, --Pierremenard 03:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. All places I ever wrote on fish till now they pretty much disqualified articles if they were written by someone who had not kept the fish themselves and only rehashed other sources. I don't really see a great deal of sense in just rehashing sources, it is only plagiarism if you do not add something from yourself. If we take this to its logical conclusion, then we would say that anybody who places their own photographs in articles, as I did, is providing something original, and that the only way it can be verified is if that photo came from someone else's website or book about it - which of course would mean being in all likelihood not in the PD.

No, it's not "plagiarism." It's "creating an encyclopedia." No encyclopedia does "original work." They summarize existing bodies of knowledge. Similarly, dictionaries report on current word usage, they don't create new words. Mark K. Bilbo 13:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand about checks and balances and keeping a style that is impersonal and not anecdotal, but what is the sense in deterring people who are knowledgeable about something in their own right, and who can do more than simply restate what is on Fishbase?

You say, you have not seen a reliable source saying that no reports of spawning in captivity exist. This is philosophically speaking like asking somebody to prove a negative assertion. In order to change the tone of my words from "from the best of my knowledge" (which, I hasten to remind you, may be unencyclopedic in style but is a proviso often essential to the maintaining of intellectual integrity, bearing in mind that articles are automatically traced to author whether someone signs them or not) to a bald assertion, obviously I had to do more research and the arguments are that neither [3] nor [4], nor indeed [5], to name the three most reputable databases, have any such reports. Neither was their any google image under the search terms of adults with eggs or fry or in a spawning position. But why to mention that? My assumption is that other users of wikipedia can google for images in vain or search for "pseudorinelepis spawning" in Google as well as I can.

I have not read every aquarist magazine in every country, which is what it would take to state for sure there has been no reporting, but I make the fair assumption that if it were reported, then news of it would have arrived at one of those places, and if not, then someone who is able to PROVE THE POSITIVE assertion, that there has been, will reference it when they come here and contradict my statement. Until then, it's perfectly fair to say there are no such reports and it should not be deleted, in my view.

In any event, I notice that in the main you liked my article, so thank you for that. What is your response to those arguments? I am still trying to work out what the philosophy is here, because I am finding in in some ways rather counterintuitive. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR has the full explanation, but to summarise: we're an encyclopaedia. We need to know that everything here is true, and anyone who reads it needs to know that everything is true, but on the other hand we're incapable of the fact-checking and peer review process that, say, an academic journal on fish does. That means we can write an article using Professor Joe Bloggs' article in a reputable journal as a reference, but if Prof. Bloggs comes here and writes a new article himself, we have to delete it until he gets it published in that journal.

So yes, basically what we're doing is writing what other people have already written. That's what an encyclopaedia does: takes knowledge that is already out there, collates it, organises it and maybe explains it a bit better. And that's not plagiarism any more than my undergraduate essays are (which haven't got a single original thought in them, mainly because I'd be marked down for it). Plagiarism means writing what other people have already written but passing it off as one's own work. --Malthusian (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation --Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Placing your own images is OK. See the section "Original Images" over at WP:NOR.

2. If the facts are that neither of the three sources have reported spawning in captivity, the sentence ought to be redone as something like "Neither Source1 nor Source2 nor Source3 have found any reliable reports in captivity." Also, if there is a reliable source that says these three sources are the three most reputable databases, then you can include that in there as well.

3. In answer to your arguments: an encyclopedia is a place that only collects knowledge available elsewhere. This isn't plagiarism; plagiarism would be if we copied some source word for word or claimed that the information originates with us. A summary is not plagiarism.

4. Further, we have no way of determining who is an expert. We have no way of determining who is qualified to add original research. And we have a huge number of vandals that delight in adding false information to articles. If we allowed this, then many wikipedia articles would not be accurate at all.

5. Finally, I'll note that even if you disagree with the policy, you ought to follow it when editing articles: it is a standard that all wikipedia users are expected to follow. If you wish to change the policy, note that each of the pages I cited above -- WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS -- has a talk page. You are free to go there and propose changes to the policy that you feel would improve the encyclopedia. --Pierremenard 16:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо за время и за выяснения. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monospecific

Hi Usenetpostsdotcom!

You recently created an article called Monospecific, nice work! However, in my opinion, it looks similar to a dictionary article. While those are often useful and contain useful information, there is a sister wiki called Wiktionary which deals specifically with dictionary articles. So instead, I've tagged the page with {{move to wiktionary}}, and in some time, it will be moved. If you have any concerns or if I'm wrong, feel free to talk to me at my talk page! Kareeser|^Talk! 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem stems from the fact that "monospecific" is an adjective, whereas most of the encyclopedia entries are nouns.

Can there be an encyclopedia entry for an adjective like "monospecific", or are articles explaining what an adjective means always going to look a bit dictionary-ish?

What is the thinking of my other Wikicoaches who have written here, is Kareeser correct, or not? --Uncle Davey (Talk) 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's a definition so it would more properly be in the Wikitionary. That doesn't "disappear" it. That just means you link to it with an Interwikimedia link.Mark K. Bilbo 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, I'll need a while to get my head around that one. From what I can see, I first need to get a log-in to Wiktionary, as it doesn't recognise my cookie, then put the entry in there, and then refer across to it with one of those boxes. It doesn't automatically copy content to the other project, right?--Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have to agree it does look like a dictionary entry. These things can work out several ways.

1. The proposed move to a dictionary is one.
2. Another possible solution is to redirect to an article that uses the term. If you cannot find such an article (i just checked and there is nothing obvious) then the information could be merged into a topical article (a section of taxonomy?) and then redirect this page to that location.
3. Another possability is to expand the article. In this case it would be interesting to give examples.
4. Also you should consider that this term could have other meanings that may require a disambiguation type page. A few examples would be"monospecific antibodies", "monospecific antivenom" or a "monospecific stand of trees". I got these examples from a google search, the last example does not imply that the trees are monospecific but they are a monoculture.

My preference would be to merge into taxonomy or expand the article with examples of the usage. If you want to redirect to taxonomy use the following #redirect [[taxonomy]] on this page. Thereafter any time some one links to monospecific is will redirect to the explanation in taxonomy. I hope this helps. David D. (Talk) 17:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, David. The answer may be to do the wiktionary entry based on the entry as it is now, and then work to a larger article here, which would have headings for each of the disambiguations, I started off with taxonomy, and then medical and the waste-management related meanings could be added in, and I think I can make a decent readable article out of that, although one that would need someone with more knowledge to come and add to it.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

While I've still got coaches, maybe I can take advantage of your patience by the way and ask if my edit of the Johnny Logan (singer) article was OK? --Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes. Of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. i did remove one sentence that appeared to be your own POV. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for your recent support on Jonathan Skinner (AfD)! Abbyemery 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Uncle Davey (Talk) 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your claims against me

How dare you claim I am on a anti-Christian agenda. If you weren't lazy and cared to click on the history of the TRACS page you could have noticed I created it. Arbusto 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to see your name appear time and again whenever a Christian article is up for deletion, and therefore I do dare to say so, and I also have been through your contribs and I see that the theme recurs quite frequently, although I see you do other things also, of presumably good use.

By the way, I only made one claim, and therefore your saying above "claims" in the plural is untrue. Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto needs to realize that simply creating a web page for TRACS doesn't mean a hill of beans. In fact, it can mean just the opposite of what he is alleging it means. If you Google "Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools",[6], its Wikipedia entry is listed 3rd. All we can ascertain by Arbusto creating this entry and putting his spin on TRACS is that he wanted people to know his opinion on TRACS; which doesn't look very favorable or accurate. This has been point out by User:Pollinator here.[7] He either misrepresented some information or simply lied, saying they lost their accrediting power in 1991, when they didn't.

He said, "In 1991, TRACS' recognition was suspended by the government due to questionable practices." and pointed to this link [8]. Well, this link says nothing of the sort. --No Jobs 06:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monospecificity

Hey, good job. Happy to see the PROD managed to give it a bump in the right direction. :) cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Uncle Davey (Talk) 19:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just as an aside

It is difficult to believe that you were unaware that your behaviour was inappropriate on Meta. In fact, you continued to engage in it as an anon IP using multiple ISPs after your account was indef blocked on Meta for this userpage vandalism by another admin. I have no reason to believe you were acting in other than a premeditated and vandalistic manner, rather than any false claim to be attempting to enforce policy as you understood it. - Amgine 05:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Are you talking to me, or is this something you've sent to a whole bunch of people? Do you have a link to what you are referring to? I haven't vandalised anything, and I didn't have an account on Meta. Come to think of it, I don't even know what Meta is. (Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

• • Time passes. Either you will have the goodness to back up your assertions or to withdraw them. (Uncle Davey (Talk) 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

I have replied on my talk page. - Amgine 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 12:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)