User talk:Limulus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello Limulus, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HGB 06:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Alpha

Hi Limulus! Thanks for fixing this up, I took out the old version which was a redirect and didn't add the correct one back in. Just a small note, when linking to an article that contains a subsection in a disambiguation, please use a # so the they get sent right to the part they want. (Eg. Development_stage#Alpha)
brenneman(t)(c) 07:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of tuatara

Hi,

I've seen that you contribute to articles on reptiles. I'd be grateful if you could give me some comments on tuatara. It's listed as a peer review, with the direct link, Wikipedia:Peer review/Tuatara. Look forward to hearing from you! Best wishes,

Samsara contrib talk 19:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitzmiller v Dover

I slightly modified and went with your suggestion regarding the Jones ruling and the DI nonsense. Thanks for bringing a moment of clarity to the talk page. Mr Christopher 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins merge

Hi Limulus. Please read the archives, this issue has been discussed to death already. There is no need whatsoever to repeat that discussion as we have consensus already. Mikker (...) 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to your questions at Talk:Richard_Dawkins#South_Park_again earlier, I hadn't noticed them. I've now replied and tried to explain the situation. Regards, Mikker (...) 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anderson Cooper

I'd appreciate your views on the talk page of Anderson Cooper bio article. I have added content that is sourced, verifiable, notable and not from a gossip site, but from the editorial page of the Washington Blade raising direct questions about Cooper's integrity as a journalist in response to his comments on his "personal life" (hence the section title). And an anonymous user again blanked the whole section, and some people are again wanting to surpress any mention of this matter. The article is basically cleansed of any criticism of the man. I think something very fishy is going on here. I noticed you've worked on this article before. I'd really appreciate your views. NYDCSP 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not re-add the information as it clearly violates WP:BLP as per the arguments laid out by several other editors. Re-inserting it without extremely good sources would violate this policy and is liable to get you blocked if you persist. -Localzuk(talk) 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It does not 'clearly violate' the policy you listed, nor is there consensus in the talk page; the sexual orientation controversy section is NPOV IMHO. -- Limulus 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Limulus, I'm giving up on editing any longer, but just as someone who got this same ridiculous nonsense spouted at me by Localzuk (who often threatens to block people like some kind of sheister defense lawyer) and others I wanted to remind you of what the WP:BLP policy actually SAYS in its entirety about such controversial areas as the one under discussion (which they interpret in a circular, meandering, almost thuggish way that would make Jerry Falwell's Bible study teachers beam with pride):

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source."

That's the policy of this alleged encyclopedia that will never be. NYDCSP 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I will say this only once - do not call my edits vandalism. My edits are in good faith. However, you are not assuming good faith. I will also point out that WP:BLP is not a policy that can be discussed. This issue is simply speculation with low quality sources to back it up. Multiple admins have now removed it under WP:BLP. If you re-add it, I will be reporting this to the WP:AN/I noticeboard.
I am not a homophobe and any inference stating I am will be abruptly responded to. I may remind you of WP:NPA also. -Localzuk(talk) 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not call you a homophobe; Kevin Naff described Brimba's comment as "blatantly homophobic". Also, I clearly spelled out my reasons for putting the section back in; I will accept criticisms of the presentation or remove it if its demonstrated with a single ref to be untrue, but deleting it wholesale after I have made my case does not seem to be in 'good faith'. -- Limulus 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% with you, Limulus. And scroll up and read what WP:BLP *says* over and over. (Indeed, let's all choke on it, shall we?) And if Localzuk is right and we can't discuss it, well then he should stop interfering with editors who are complying with it. I'm done. Have fun, friend. Don't let people who can't twist the rules to suit themselves intimidate you. NYDCSP 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, I will take a look now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the advice

Hi Limulus. Thank you for the advice that you left on my talk page, regarding the most efficient way to revert vandalism. I shall utilise your advice the next time I spot blanked content on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Blind designer 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

The Original Barnstar
I award Limulus a barnstar for maintaining an NPOV policy, being open-minded and helpful, and working tirelessly to be an extraordinary contributor to Wikipedia. --Ubiq 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For you to put wherever you want, if you want it. Thanks for going the extra mile to improve the Anderson Cooper article (and other articles) as much as you have. Best. --Ubiq 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! :-) -- Limulus 06:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/m/User_talk%7ELimulus_5d70.html"