User talk:CHE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi Christopher -, I just saw the article Henry Gleason and thought I would say welcome. I see you've been here before, but welcome anyhow! Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello again Christopher, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Welcome again Chris. I enjoyed the Gleason article; I discussed him briefly in the vegetation article also. I hope you can continue to contribute articles on the history of ecology and other topics.

Jeeb 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Problem

No problem :) Glad you got that and weren't confused when you tried to login :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climax community

Already commented on the talk page. As I said, I think you did a good job, but there's one line that bothers me. Guettarda 05:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WGEliot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WGEliot.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by reverts

The following is retaliation from a vandal I reverted, who has subsequently been banned indefinitely. CHE 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from revert vandalism. It has been noted that you have repeatedly reverted articles where new information was added, with no more explanation aside from not being able to collaborate the information with Google. This is your first and last warning.--202.159.212.165 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Contrary to your assertion, I do not believe that I have vandalized your edits by reversion. I will refrain from reverting your edits, but please read your talk page for my rationale for my reverts, which I believe were justified given available evidence.The explanation I offered was NOT merely that I was unable to corroborate the information online. Thanks. CHE 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have looked closely at http://www.imbewu.co.za/html/current_projects.htm , the URL cited on IMBEWU (which you have accused me of vandalizing because I reverted your additions). It contradicts what you have added to that page. Therefore it is silly to suggest that my reversion constitutes vandalism. CHE 02:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I have looked closely at that press release and together with the organization's homepage, there is no evidence for 202.159.212.165's assertion that "The charity's main focus is finding and distributing cures for AIDS and facilitating in the exchange of used car parts." There is nothing about car parts. If that is, as you say, their main activity, surely it would be featured on their main activities page. The assesrtion is not only unsourced/not-verifiable, but also in contradiction with the available. At the very least, by policy such information should be sourced. So look: I reverted an unsourced, and apparently false, edit by an anonymous user who minutes earlier had added nonsense to another page, and who is not apparently able to offer any evidence for that assertion. Sure smells like that's vandalism I reverted. In any case, I added a citations-needed tag to that page, but I am done with you. CHE 03:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I appreciate the sincerity of your efforts with regards to the above matter. Wiki users deserve the quality articles and information that you are striving for. Best of luck with future edits. --202.159.212.165 03:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi CHE, I have asked the anon user to be more specific. In case, he is unable to do that, I will revert his tags atleast on Wikipedia and Microsoft. However, assuming good faith, I guess I will give him a couple of days, in case he is not online soon (Though I suspect someone else will revert the tags before then). -- Lost(talk) 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gnome (Bot)

please note that Category:Philosophy of Science does not exist. that is why it was removed Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Category:Philosophy of science does, and it should have been changed to that. CHE 19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princess parrot

(Copied from User talk"SuperJumbo): Hey-the reason I hadn't shot the Princess Parrot nonsense on sight was that it had been put there by a nonsense-adding vandal subsequently identified by someone else as the General Tojo vandal, and once I started reverting his edits, he got angry and started issuing me vandalism warnings. Tired of being called a vandal for clearing out nonsense, I started just flagging his BS instead of removing it. Anyway, so I'm glad you fixed it. CHE 22:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Fair enough - there are some people on WP whose aim in what passes for a life is to make life difficult for good faith editors. I must admit my eyebrows shot skywards when I saw this stuff! --Jumbo 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Epistemology

Thanks for reminding me about this. I suggest you restore what you like and see what happens. I have no major objections. The trouble is that the only (arguably) non-partisan work on both schools of SE seems to be Remedios' book. And, as I he reminded me, he actually identifies three strands of SE. He is not, to my mind, right about this and his views have not been influential. But there is a danger that this article becomes WP:OR in its handling of this issue. As I read SE there are two distinct approaches: Fuller and Goldman. But Remedios wants to count Shapin and the Strong Programme as a variety of SE. I think that confuses an already difficult issue. But it's probably best just to have it out on the talk pages. My suggestions is to be bold. I'll be back at it in the new year. Looking forward to it.--Thomas Basboll 21:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for input

On the Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy article, or, more specifically, its deletion page.

Thank you. 271828182 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your contributions to the Afd. Best wishes, 271828182 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G. David Tilman

Regarding this edit, from what I have heard, it's true that Tilman was born Titman; the anon probably is attempting to add material in good faith. Of course, it's uncited, and possibly apocryphal, so it doesn't belong in the article without a citation...but probably isn't vandalism either. Guettarda 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/e/User_talk%7ECHE_ef26.html"