User talk:Pete.Hurd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] AN/I

I just looked at the links, and really there's nothing to them. The alleged civility violations appear to be exist in the imagination of people who are terrified of "the f-word". Guettarda 05:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis

Hi Pete, happy new year. I think blanking talk pages is somewhat bad form unless there's something utterly egregious, so I archived the page as a compromise? Take care -- Samir धर्म 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary study of social behaviour merge/redirect

Ive left a response to your suggestion over on the Evolutionary study of social behaviour talk page. Orgone 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD-Space warfare in fiction

I see what you mean but I still think this article is salvageable, even if it needs a complete rewrite. I don't think the topic itself is invalid, so maybe a {{unsourced}} tag would be more appropriate than an AfD. Walton monarchist89 09:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Although I do acknowledge the shortcomings of the article and the topic in general, I would like to point out that if Space warfare in fiction is deleted, it will be formed again as a subsection of Space Warfare, where it will continue to grow at a rate that will probably be greater than the rest of the Space Warfare page. Eventually, somebody will spin it off back onto its own page. I suggest that, if Space warfare in fiction is deleted, you try to get the page salted. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally would not salt the page, but eventually, assuming the information from Space warfare in fiction goes back into Space Warfare and it is continually updated with proper referances, the subsection will get too large to remain just a subsection. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, all it takes is one Wikipedian who is being bold to end the RFA now and merge it back into the original article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would argue that although the information contained within this page is OR now, that doesn't mean it will remain OR forever. When it comes to Wikipedia, I am more of the philosophy that OR articles should be sourced (if possible; cases of advertising or spam pages nonwithstanding) and improved instead of deleted. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you fully that this page needs lots of work. However, I disagree with the way it is currently getting done (first written in OR, then deleted, then rewritten again). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

I forgot what Wikipedia is, where truthiness is all that matters. I was curious about the project given comments from students -- I even had 8 students doing Wikipedia projects last semester for honors credit. I guess I have found out what I wanted. Genetics411 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DrMcNeeley

sorry, I had him mixed up. I've apologized on the AfD page. DGG 06:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Save

Hey Pete,

I userfied the now-defunt Space warfare in fiction page. I am currently fixing it up to get it up to article standards. If you wish to contribute (I could really use help with sources), it can be found here. Thanks man. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ah...

Gotcha. I was going to fix the second AFD, but it got deleted before I could. No harm done, though. --Captain Wikify Argh! 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] legislatures

The last month or two of afd discussions has been accepting US and I think some UK candidates for the national legislature, if belonging to major parties. It's rejected some that didn't win in the primary. I can find the discussions, but there was no really far-reaching or high-level discussion. Of course, i am perhaps remembering the ones I want to remember--I have not gone back and checked. Like all case law, the precedents are only as strong as the recent decisions

I think it is/would be a good rule--there are less than 300/year in the US, and probably a smaller number in the UK. But it is possible that Australia doesn't have this primary election step, but this week's discussions were I think all about major party candidates. Where that doesnt apply. I'd go with % of vote, and make the cutoff somewhere between 10% and 30% in a two party system. With proportional representation, the standards are different & much harder to figure out, because the most important candidate of all parties are generally elected.
How far down this should go is a different question. DGG 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. What I said was recent decisions in the plural., not the most recent vote in the singular. For the short run we should have consistency, because how else will people know what and how to write. In the long run, standards change. Thee are some accepted standards that I would change, in various directions. My main actual concern is not schools or politicians, but academic faculty, where I think the rules contradictory and the application variable and often ignorant. But there are ongoing discussions about that, which should yield something slightly better, at least for the scientists. My main overriding concern is fairness, & thus the value of recent precedents. I am not sure we disagree on the principles. DGG 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So what is it to you?

--Michael Johnson 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just jumped - I thought you were haveing a go at me. I had just spent the last ten minutes trying to reply to the guy....! --Michael Johnson 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Morrell

He's a nice guy, but he can get emotionally-involved in articles and lose his cool occasionally. If you have any serious problems you can't handle please don't hesitate to get in touch, but I'm sure the current respectful and mature debate on the talk page is the correct way to approach this. TimVickers 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For dedicated work in populating Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. Keep up the good work. Bduke 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You didn't see the small print at the top of the page? ~ trialsanderrors 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems a well intentioned, good faith kind of an oversight. I ought to have put it in the footer rather than the header... Cheers all, Pete.Hurd 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not see the small print. Sorry. I just wanted to thank you for what you are doing with deletion sorting for academics and encourage you to keep at it. Delete it if you want. --Bduke 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toberman House

Professor Hurd,

Thank you for your message and the suggestion/encouragement, but I don't know a damn thing about the subject in question oustide of Mike and Kira's support of it. --CJ Marsicano 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PW Game

Pete - Sweet christ. Will this guy never give up?! I'm inclined to remove those sections, since people are likely to take them at face value. What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose your right. It isn't as bad as the previous peace war game. I'll let the folks at War decide what to do about it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latitude and wealth

You asked to be notified if significant changes occurred on this page. See latest version. Novickas 16:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki for Evolution and Human Behavior?

Hi Pete. I was wondering...what do you think of the idea of creating a wiki for evolution and human behavior. I'm thinking along the lines of a wiki that would focus on things like evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, dual inheritance theory, etc. Something that would detail all of the theories, hypotheses, models, researchers, programs of study, institutes, etc. in this area. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Have a good one! EPM 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snake scales

Thanks. I'm not a contributor to the article though, I just read it and thought it was a nice article. bibliomaniac15 03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue chemists

hi Pete, nice catch with the sockpuppetry. I'd noticed the two barnstars (classy!) but hadn't reported it since neither of those accounts had logged in. I'm also keeping an eye on 80.47.144.116, who made this edit to my page. oddly enough, although both the chemists are interested in correcting "spelling and grammar", they spell "grammar" differently! best, bikeable (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

moved the following User:Curious Gregor paragraphs from my user page. Pete.Hurd 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello - You accused me of this whole "Sockpuppetry thing" - Shame on you. There is only one of me. How many are there of you. - If you look I feel I write enough stuff on my own to not need multiple ids. Sadly I am logged on through a university network and so the IP address is the same for many people.
I assume as you yourself are an academic you occasionally log in through your university's network and so your IP will be similar to others. Hence in the same way you accuse me I shall accuse you. - By the way - if you consider this vandalism then you yourself are a vandal. Remember that.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curious Gregor (talk • contribs).

[edit] Postelsia Review

I saw the review, thank you. The pictures were found on a website that said they made the pictures, and gave no copyright or liscencing for them (I'll admit they didn't actively say "hey, use these"). As for the law, I've only seen references to such a law, never the law itself. I think that would require actually delving into the code of California law, which is not something I'm about to ecstacically hop to doing. Thank you for the good review, though. I put quite some effort into it, though I'll admit it was a little easier than I thought it would be. By the way, you should archive your talk page. You seem very popular. Werothegreat 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I have just emailed the owner of the site asking express permission to use the offending photographs. Hopefully, he'll reply in a couple of days. Werothegreat 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mad kemist

Long as I'm dealing with him anyway, I'll have a look through the case and contribs. Looks like there is a good reason for suspicion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Meatstar of Good Puppeteering
I herewith award you the meatstar for your efforts turning other editors into your meat puppets to further your sneaky goals. Note this is not a barnstar! – William Parcher 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] best responce

no the article looks great nowOo7565 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

no (further) barnstars please

[edit] Patrick De/de Meyer

Just a quick note, if you want to delete a re-direct to a non-existent page {{Db-redirnone}} will do instead of a prod. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pelvicachromis pulcher

I was looking at the log for recently passed GA's, and noticed that this one doesn't have any review accompanying it, and that you were the one who passed it. Any reason why you didn't post a review on the talk page? When people don't actually say anything, its difficult to figure out what their reason for passing the article was. Plus, somebody could speedy delist this article at any time for being invalidly passed, since the rules in WP:GAC clearly call for a written note to be left on the talk page explaining an article's passage. Homestarmy 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense. An article passes when it conforms to the criteria. There is no special reason. Reviews are only needed when articles are rejected. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/t/User_talk%7EPete.Hurd_4d34.html"