User talk:Skittle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your wrong, Gutted

No im not Nelstrone and what hard work have I damaged? You just revert it, idot.

P.S You <3 The Boys 81.156.19.165 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the way u don't even want to admit ur wrong on ur own userpage, check my usertalk for ur answer

I answered on your talk page because that is what I usually do. You get a message, so you know I've replied. Anyone who wants to follow this conversation can see my reply on your talk page, and the rather crude edit you made to my comment in the history. I'm replying to this here because that seems to be how you would prefer I do it. Skittle 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S What productive thigns cud u have been doing? You live on wikipedia. END

[edit] Lists

On Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession you wrote:

I always felt uncomfortable about the lists of Jewish ____ on Wikipedia.

Do you have the same feeling about lists of Muslim ____ or Christian Scientist ____ or Atheist ____ ? This is a serious question because whether lists of Jews should be singled out for special treatment has been a contentious issue on that page. I encourage you to return there are clarify your position one way or the other. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists (response)

I'm reluctant to defend myself on the talkpage itself, since the conversation seems to have died, and people were getting quite scary. However, I feel sullied by people's insinuations, so reproduce the talk here and offer explanation for what, to me, seems a puzzling response.

What I wrote first In case it is relevant, I always felt uncomfortable about the lists of Jewish ____ on Wikipedia. Firstly, there is the whole historical echos thing. Secondly, they seemed extremely non-notable and ridiculous. Like having a list of red-haired authors or somesuch. It seemed silly and potentially dangerous (in terms of encouraging conspiracy theories) to have such lists. And that was before I knew about Jewwatch and other related sites.Skittle 18:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

After the request at the top of this page: There's been a request for clarity. Yes, I feel the same about spurious lists of athiests, muslims, etc. Making lists of sports stars and soldiers by ethnicity or religion seems a little strange if they aren't notable for the two aspects together. But the lists of Jews made me feel more so, because there seem to be so many of them. It looks like they're being singled out to be recorded, watched.Skittle 20:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The reply from someone who probably has experienced anit-semitic behaviour: I fail to understand (as a Jew myself) Skittle's paranoia, supposedly (disingenuously?) on behalf of myself and my co-religionists. What's with this 'so many of them' as regards lists of Jews? If anyone is 'singling' them out, it is Skittle and those who have put up similar postings during this discussion, thereby consistently skewing the debate (some might say, attempting to railroad it). The more Skittle and similar writers go on about numbers of categories of Jews, the more it is they in fact who give fuel to the racist goons they claim to deprecate. The 'historical echos thing' (sic)? What could be more of a historical echo than to make Wikipedia Judenrein (free of Jews)? Now can we please call a halt to responses of Skittle's sententious nature and concentrate on building an encyclopaedia - Smerus 10:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I felt there were a large number of lists of "Jewish ____" or "category:Jewish ___" was because every time I checked Recent Edits there would be at least one of these represented. In no way did I think or imply that I didn't want Jewish people on the Wikipedia; to me that is honestly as odd as suggesting I don't want red-haired people on. And this is a straight comparison because that is how much I think about it. However, that doesn't mean they all need to be gathered into lists like this, if the lists are connecting two very different things; it is too much like singling people out for easy identification. I firstly feel uneasy about them because they seem to be connecting and collecting in a strange way that feels like it's trying to make a point. Sort of segregating, but I thought that was just silly. Only after other users had brought up Jewwatch did I start to feel any concern for the people listed. You don't have to have a category of people represented in every special list possible for them to be present.

And I only posted because people had particularly been discussing these lists and whether they belonged.

Later, this was posted: I feel uneasy at Skittle's equating being Jewish (or belonging to any other ethnicity or religion, as Skittle hurried to correct themselves) with being red-haired. If anything is "silly and potentially dangerous", then it's precisely just this sort of equivalence.--Pecher 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC) You folks should be a little kinder to Skittle. This is his (her?) first post on this page; it's others who have attempted to hijack the page to unrelated topics. I went to his user talk page to ask for a clarification of whether he was singling out Jews in particular, and as you see by his second post, he isn't. Back off, already. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC) This is what Skittle contributed on Talk:Israel: "Official discrimination: how about the fact (I was shocked) that only orthodox Jewish weddings are recognised as marriages officially"[10]. The comment was unsigned.--Pecher 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Well, from this comment it seems there may be a question as to whether we can regard Skittle as being WP:NPOV on this subject. Arniep 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Why did you say that, Arniep? We all have our own opinions. You'd better read WP:NPOV again. It says nothing about editors needing to be unbiased, especially on talk pages. Are you going to search through my edit history to see if I'm perfectly neutral in my opinions? It might take a long time. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Well Skittle's comment perhaps indicates a dislike for Israel and I don't think we can regard that dislike as being mutually exclusive to acknowledging the existence of a Jewish people, and the right to acknowledge people as part of a Jewish community in the form of lists or categories. Arniep 01:13, 18 January 2006

For what its worth, the comments of Talk:Israel were part of a discussion on whether there was official discrimination in Israel or not. Some people felt there wasn't any; I felt this law was a contra-indication. It wasn't signed because I forgot; if I was trying to be anonymous I wouldn't have signed in, would I? And how is that comment, in that discussion, a sign of anti-semitism?

Below I list the section of talk:lists in context.


I offered this proposal after the principles behind it gained acceptance on a number of AfD discussions. It seemed like a good way to move toward consensus and consistency on a gray area of official policy. During the first two weeks the discussion looked promising, although a bit thin in attendance. I didn't log on for three days, and when I returned - boom - counterproposals had appeared and a very hot button debate was ongoing about topics I considered outside the scope of the former discussion.

I don't take "ownership" of the matter, yet I've honestly come to wonder if my former hope for productive consensus was misplaced. To the other editors who remain after the storm: do you consider this a useful starting point for a Wikipedia guideline? Durova 03:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the storm really over? I have to admit to some discouragement. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC) I had a big thing written, but it wouldn't post so vanished. Anyway I think on its own it was on the road to working out as something. I didn't entirely agree with your initial idea, but I thought it was getting somewhere. However there really are more disputed groups which makes dealing with this very difficult. In principle there are several ethnicities and religions that cause dispute this way. For example Who is an American Indian? is the subject of numerous papers. However in practice there aren't that many in Category:Native American Wikipedians and there is no article on this issue the way there is for Who is a Jew?. The Category may not be reflective, but I'd imagine that socio-economic factors do cause indigenous peoples to be underrepresented here. (Bearing in mind that tribal nations vary widely in their economic circumstances just as European or Asian nations do) Anyway in practice things linked to Category:Lists of Jews is probably going to be the main debated area for a good awhile. I think it was a good effort, but although I'm uncomfortable with this I think the Jewish lists will have to be dealt with using a different policy.--T. Anthony 06:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Would you agree to a statement like, Individual listings and group inclusion standards may be subjects of editorial dispute. It is outside the scope of this guideline to determine "Who is a Jew?" or who is a Lutheran or who is a Native American, etc. This rests with WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, relevant Wikipedia precedents, and list editors. An introduction on the project page should explain inclusion guidelines to the reader. One possible compromise might be to list all verified claims for inclusion and annotate disputed items as appropriate." Durova 06:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Oh probably. I'm just not sure what I'd agree to is the only issue here. I think many would not agree to that judging by past discussions.--T. Anthony 06:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Have we really seen a representative discussion? This sort of compromise can't satisfy hardcore inclusionists or hardcore deletionists. Nor can it satiate other extreme appetites, such as the wish to devour all Jewish lists and categories. If we let that stop us then we might as well concede the effort now. Fortunately we are discussing a proposed guideline, not a proposed policy. People will remain free to disagree. Durova 07:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC) In case it is relevant, I always felt uncomfortable about the lists of Jewish ____ on Wikipedia. Firstly, there is the whole historical echos thing. Secondly, they seemed extremely non-notable and ridiculous. Like having a list of red-haired authors or somesuch. It seemed silly and potentially dangerous (in terms of encouraging conspiracy theories) to have such lists. And that was before I knew about Jewwatch and other related sites.Skittle 18:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There's been a request for clarity. Yes, I feel the same about spurious lists of athiests, muslims, etc. Making lists of sports stars and soldiers by ethnicity or religion seems a little strange if they aren't notable for the two aspects together. But the lists of Jews made me feel more so, because there seem to be so many of them. It looks like they're being singled out to be recorded, watched.Skittle 20:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC) I fail to understand (as a Jew myself) Skittle's paranoia, supposedly (disingenuously?) on behalf of myself and my co-religionists. What's with this 'so many of them' as regards lists of Jews? If anyone is 'singling' them out, it is Skittle and those who have put up similar postings during this discussion, thereby consistently skewing the debate (some might say, attempting to railroad it). The more Skittle and similar writers go on about numbers of categories of Jews, the more it is they in fact who give fuel to the racist goons they claim to deprecate. The 'historical echos thing' (sic)? What could be more of a historical echo than to make Wikipedia Judenrein (free of Jews)? Now can we please call a halt to responses of Skittle's sententious nature and concentrate on building an encyclopaedia - Smerus 10:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC) I think Jewish lists are overrepresented when you consider their/your position in the world. Although on investigation I think Canadians are more overrepresented. Category:Lists of Canadian people is fairly huge when you consider they represent less than 1% of the world's people. Ideally I'd want a Wikipedia where Category:Lists of Hindu people exists and is larger than the Jewish list category. Not because I have any ill will towards Jewish people, but out of a sense of fairness. I think there really are more notable Hindus in history than notable Jewish people. I mean there are hundreds of millions of Hindus and they have also been around for thousands of years.--T. Anthony 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I am struggling to grasp your point when you say "Jewish lists are overrepresented when you consider their/your position in the world". Do you mean that the number of lists (sic, not even persons on the list) devoted to a certain nation in Wikipedia must be proportionate to the share of that nation in global population? But why? I see absolutly no reason why it should be so. No Wikipedia policy prescribes ethnic quotas or affirmative action. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, so some categories of lists are more developed than others. We should expand the currently undeveloped lists, instead of reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.--Pecher 08:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC) This is a valid criticism. I'm not in favor of affirmative action, but the way I phrased it indicates otherwise. It is a flawed paragraph, I'd agree. However what I believe is that going simply on merit there are as many or more notable Hindus as there are notable Jewish people. I can not prove this, but I would be baffled if this is not so. Because for it to not be so it would mean that per-capita the Jewish population produces 40 times more notable people and the idea of the Jewish people as "super-people", or Hindus as losers, makes me strongly uncomfortable. That said I recognize that Hindus are per capita a poorer and less literate people. So I'm not thinking in quota terms. If I were thinking in "quota" terms there should be roughly 40 times more Hindu lists than there are Jewish lists, but that would clearly be absurd and unjustified. I also never said anything like that. India's "Internet users per thousand people" is only about 3% the US's[1] and its literacy rate is about 62%.[2] So they likely do produce less noteworthy people per capita. However not to the extent these lists make it ouy. Do you really think it makes sense to have almost 60 things in Category:Lists of Jews, but haveno Category:Hindus whatsoever? To have one List of Hindus(correction again four, I found a List of Hindu gurus and Hindu Gurus and Saints. List of people who have been considered avatars, which I worked on, I suppose could also count although almost half of them aren't Hindu. I've found 11 Hindu related lists in all, but the rest are of denominations or organization, not people.--T. Anthony 09:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)) , but over 60 Jewish related lists? You really think that believing there are as many notable Hindus as there are Jews is PCish quotaizing?--T. Anthony 09:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Not yet, but it's the first step to quotas. Once people come up the idea that a number of notable people of one nation must be equal to the number of notable people of another nation, they usually proceed to concluding that any deviation of practice from their theory reflects injustice or oppression and seek to remedy it. One of the ways to remove such sort of "injustice" is by impsoing quotas. Note, however, that this sort of thinking is a mockery of science: instead of developing a theory that fits the facts, people first develop a theory and then they bend the facts to suit their theory.--Pecher 11:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Please don't imply motives to me that I reject categorically. It's insulting and annoying. Wikipedia doesn't deal well with Hindus or the Third World not because they lack merit. You can't honestly believe Joey Serlin[3] is more notable than "Indra Nooyi."[4] I'm talking about what has merit and right now Wikipedia often fails on that when it comes to Third World peoples. You honestly believe otherwise, ever read Criticisms of Wikipedia?--T. Anthony 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I did not imply any motives to you, nor did I intend to insult you. I simply tried to answer your question on "PCish quotaizing". As you can see from my post, I described my observations on how quota systems develop nowadays. Nothing regarding you personally.--Pecher 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I don't know what the proportion of notable Hindus to notable Jews is, nor do I care. I do not believe any person in the world knows what this proportion is either. Your belief that "there are as many or more notable Hindus as there are notable Jewish people" is entirely a matter of your personal faith. I do not have any problems with your private beliefs, but in Wikipedia we must stick to sourced and verifiable information.--Pecher 11:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I had a long thing on this, but essentially you're wrong. IMDB has 18911 films and series from India.[5]. This likely means thousands and thousands of Hindus, not that all Indians are Hindus mind you, of note to a billion of the world's people. Add to that three thousand years of history and a following of 860 million Hindus. My personal beliefs are only a small part of it. I'm going by basic mathematical logic and merit. If there aren't more notable Hindus than Jews than Jews really are super-people or Hindus are losers. Either way the burden of proof really should be on you. My statement on this is the more defensible one mathematically and by simple history. Prove me wrong. Still if quotas are the only way to have this place consider say Category:Sudanese people to be as important as Category:Star Trek: Voyager then maybe it's worth considering.--T. Anthony 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC) You're essentially arguing that there are "should be" more notable Hindus than Jews. Yet, I do not think this subject is worth discussing, not least because any conclusion at which we may arrive will not have any practical conaequences. If you know notable Hindus who are not included in Wikipedia, create articles about them. If you know notable Hindus with article in Wikipedia, but who are not included in lists of Hindus, put them on the lists. If you think some Jewish people with articles in Wikipedia are not notable, nominate the articles for deletion. That is a constructive approach to improving Wikipedia. Arguing in general terms that there should be more notable Hindus than notable Jews is hardly constructive.--Pecher 13:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Hindus are mostly a "for example." An example you haven't managed to refute in any remotely meaningful or credible way I have to say. Basically you say this is just my feeling, which is again is making it as if I have to prove my point. I don't accept that at all, not a bit. Prove why Jewish people are more notable than a people 40 times larger than them. This seems the harder case. As mentioned though it's just an example. I really don't know Hinduism or Hindus well enough to start creating articles willy nilly. That Hindus are not as notable in the United States is also not something I'm denying, but there are countries besides the US. Still this seems to confuse you so much, when it should be obvious or bland, that I'm thinking I'm up to late and poorly communicating. Also I was and am being a bit snotty on it to some extent. No hard feelings.--T. Anthony 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Not only did I not manage to refute what you are saying, but I also never tried because I see no point in discussing issues like "are there are more notable Jews than Hindus" or "are there are more notable Poles than Germans". Such discussions will not produce anything tangible. If you believe that there are more notable Hindus than Jews, that's fine, but what's next? What shall we do if your belief is true?--Pecher 17:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Well for starters this is not simply my belief and the way you keep saying this is grating. It is a hypothesis based on the existing mathematical and historical data. Hinduism is 3000+ years old, India produces more movies than anyone, and there are 860 million Hindus. That there are more notable Hindus seems like a logical notion to me and the alternatives strike me as repugnant. (The alternative being that per capita Jewish people produce 40 times more notable people than Hindus do. Even factoring in disparities of wealth and education this seems odd at best.) Now how do I test this hypothesis? Well the Internet seems to indicate evidence against it. "Hindus"[6] only gets about 8.7% as many Google hits as "Jews."[7] Hinduism[8] gets only 6.4 million hits, compared to 15.6 million for Judaism.[9] So this could argue that I'm in error. However "Hindu" got 17.2 million hits while "Jew" got only 12.3 million. Also the Google hits measure isn't a good judge for Third World topics. I guess there's no way I can prove to you it's more than a mere belief at the moment, but it is more than one nevertheless. This seems pretty obvious to me and I'm not sure what more to say on that. Still several existing Jewish lists are scant and could likely be merged. Likewise List of Hindus is very large and also incomplete. It could be broken up a bit so individual areas could be expanded.--T. Anthony 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) You have produced a fine piece of original research to prove the point I persistently refuse to discuss. Note that I do not refute what you are saying; I just see no reason in discussing it. However, as you were expanding your proof, you failed to answer my question: "So what?" Assume that what you're saying is true; what are the practical implications? Please observe that your last proposals that some lists of Jews may be merged and the list of Hindus be split are completely unrelated to your contemplations above on the numbers of notable Jews and Hindus. You do not propose to do so because there more notable Hindus than notable Jews, but because "several existing Jewish lists are scant", while "List of Hindus is very large".--Pecher 08:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC) This conversation has gone on way passed my interest in it. I'm re-evaluating the idea I was snotty before as I think my irritation was perhaps justified. Anyway I give up. Although criticizing me on original research at a talk page strikes me as immensely silly.--T. Anthony 11:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) And now I've created Category:Hinduism related lists to find any I missed. I also realized three that I was counting as lists were in fact not lists.--T. Anthony 09:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I don't think you can really equate Hindus with Jewish people. Hindus pretty much had a state identity, Indian which Jewish people had not had for c.2000 years, and Hindus have not really suffered the enforced dispersal that Jews have suffered. Arniep 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not really equating. However I kind of see what you're saying as a non-sequitir. Are you saying that because Jews were dispersed each of them is of more value, as a list or category, than Hindus? Why? If so does this mean Armenian, Maya, or Romany-related lists and categories are everywhere? They faced genocide and of those only the Armenians have a nation, but that nation is recent. I'm trying not to be insensitive, but I don't get this.--T. Anthony 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC) T.Anthony I think you are somewhat confused on this Hindu vs Jew issue. The reason there are not many lists of famous Hindus is that they are likely listed under Indian, because Hindus have pretty much been tied to this country for an extremely long time, whereas Jewish people have been dispersed amongst many countries and have not had a state to tie to their identity until recently. Regards Arniep 14:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I feel uneasy at Skittle's equating being Jewish (or belonging to any other ethnicity or religion, as Skittle hurried to correct themselves) with being red-haired. If anything is "silly and potentially dangerous", then it's precisely just this sort of equivalence.--Pecher 17:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC) You folks should be a little kinder to Skittle. This is his (her?) first post on this page; it's others who have attempted to hijack the page to unrelated topics. I went to his user talk page to ask for a clarification of whether he was singling out Jews in particular, and as you see by his second post, he isn't. Back off, already. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC) This is what Skittle contributed on Talk:Israel: "Official discrimination: how about the fact (I was shocked) that only orthodox Jewish weddings are recognised as marriages officially"[10]. The comment was unsigned.--Pecher 19:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Well, from this comment it seems there may be a question as to whether we can regard Skittle as being WP:NPOV on this subject. Arniep 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Why did you say that, Arniep? We all have our own opinions. You'd better read WP:NPOV again. It says nothing about editors needing to be unbiased, especially on talk pages. Are you going to search through my edit history to see if I'm perfectly neutral in my opinions? It might take a long time. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Well Skittle's comment perhaps indicates a dislike for Israel and I don't think we can regard that dislike as being mutually exclusive to acknowledging the existence of a Jewish people, and the right to acknowledge people as part of a Jewish community in the form of lists or categories. Arniep 01:13, 18 January 2006

[edit] Userboxes

Thank you very much- This is Valento- I am very intelligent, and have studied such things for years. Macroevolution is senseless, but I do agree with microevolution. Please visit Wikicreation. Great site. By the way, I have an IQ of 192. April 7, 2006 User:Valento

Hey thats ok- I see what you meantwhen i clicked on the word"bright". Definitley not that.

User:Valento April 26

[edit] London Underground

Wikipedia is supposed to be an international encyclopedia, and erecting obstacles to understanding for the sake of some sort of language provincialism is not on. And no, since "full stop" is NOT a standard or well-known term in North American English, it's NOT obvious from context. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not say it was standard or well-known, just that it was guessable in context. I have wikilinked it to help people. Meanwhile, think about what international means and read wikipolicy on BE/AE if you haven't already. (I'll find the link) The Full stop article also suggests it is known in America, if not widely used. Skittle 02:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heinlein quote

Hi Skittle. The quote about specialisation being for insects is by Robert A. Heinlein, from "The Notebook of Lazarus Long", according to this. Regards. JackofOz 09:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you. Skittle 09:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RD/L

Having happened upon your talk page after reading your reply to my profession of an inability to comprehend French (for which inability I ought to blame my high school French teacher, who was ostensibly fluent yet required a translator when our class travelled to France), and hoping that your reply was in the spirit of the discussion (viz., that it was jocular/facetious, as mine) but fearing that you might think me a dolt, I find here that your beliefs vis-à-vis lists mirror mine. Thence I infer that you are supremely intelligent (great minds think alike, after all; so too, unfortunately, do crazy ones...) and gain confidence that you took my comment in the spirit in which it was intended. One always worries about using sarcasm (especially relatively badly, as, sometimes, I) in written communication, especially to a community comprising many non-native English speakers. In any case, I've seen only a few of your RD contributions, but they've been, IMHO, uniformly good and altogether entertaining; keep up the good work! Joe 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Boo

I've removed Doctor Boo from the Articles for Deletion page. You nominated this for Speedy Deletion, not Articles for Deletion, so it does not belong on the AfD page. Cheers!--Isotope23 16:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cipherin'

I Googled up this page: http://www.secretcodebreaker.com/autokey.html, and solved the phrase from there. Let me know if that's enough to get you going .. ==LarryMac 22:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, my friend. I had a very similar reaction to resolving level 11 :-) --LarryMac 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My assumption is that "I want my gap" is related to the clue she left on the Ref Desk about having "missed out the spaces" -- in other words, she didn't make it easy to tell where each character ended. It kills me that my notepad had 110 111 111 110 on it since soon after I'd gotten to that puzzle, and yet I just couldn't see the answer! --LarryMac 18:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] it doesnt need to be invented-- there already is a language of conciseness

The price of anything worth having is something else worth having. (It might be worth inventing a language in order to be able to express this concisely) Skittle

Try this: Pretium desiderati desideratum. alteripse 10:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vestigial structure reference

I was wondering what specific line the reference you added on the vestigial structure page refers to in the article. I am trying to start up a references list but the only reference so far does not point to anything (not using the <ref></ref> tags). Is it pointing to the line that you added at the top where you clarified the definition of a "vestigial structure"? Thanks.--SomeStranger (t|c) 11:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed supposed to link to the sentence I added in the introduction. I'm not very good at doing references and didn't want to muck the article up. I must confess that it is a second hand reference; it is cited in the talk.origins page, but I doubt that it wouldn't say the words that they say it says (if you can follow that...). If we can get hold of it, it's probably a good reference for the whole article as well. Skittle 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I fixed up the reference up top, but what about the random book reference at the bottom? I am not quite sure I understand where it is pointing to.--SomeStranger (t|c) 11:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The book reference was what I was referring to above ^ since I didn't want to just include talk.origins. It is a source used on a talk.origins page [1] that said:
Vestigial Organs and Structures
Vestigial organs and structures (also called vestigia, rudiments, or remnants) are reduced body parts or organs, often without visible function in the derived bearers, that were fully developed and functioning in earlier members of that phylogenetic lineage. These structures, sometimes described as atrophied or degenerate, are usually small in comparison with their relative size in ancestral generations or in closely related species. ... vestigial structures may have acquired new, less obvious functions that differ from the original ones. Hence, a vestigium should not generally be considered without function, or only with respect to its ancestral, adult roles.
apparently on pp 1131-1133. It seemed a better source for the statement than a talk.origins page. The whole section is probably a good source too. Skittle 11:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand now. In that case let's use the book as the only reference since it is the primary source of that information. Thanks for the help.--SomeStranger (t|c) 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

/Welcome

[edit] VG Current Events

Thanks for your help. It was much appreciated. JonTheGamer

[edit] Shakespeare

What do you think of this? Adambiswanger1 18:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a little combative, but clear. You might want to make it clearer that, although citing is important, this doesn't necessarily mean a footnote at the end of every sentence. This is a misunderstanding which leads many to avoid citing these sort of things. Also, this would only be on the talk page, yes? No need to scare the readers :-) Nice work though, it's good to see someone taking citing seriously. Skittle 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yea, it would be on the talk page. The only reason I threw in a flair of sternness in the template was because of some of the questionable interpretations I just came across: "This sonnet has suggestions of references to masturbation Then, beauteous niggard, why dost thou abuse. The suggestion is that the male in the sonnet should be procreation to preserve his beauty rather than engaging in self-pleasure.". Don't you love that? Adambiswanger1 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Classy :-) Yes, I can see why you'd feel the need. Go ahead with my blessing! Skittle 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autostereogram

Well, it's User:Raul654's call, as Featured Article Director, but in general he gives in-trouble nominations five days or so and more borderline cases like Autostereogram some extra time. I suppose he thought that one has lost traction after so much time. Feel free to renominate it after a couple of weeks and having addressed all the outstanding objections. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Skittle. Thanks for nominating this article. I know the nomination has been archived, but I continued to enhance it and to add inline citations. I believe it is now done. I'll nominate it myself again after a while. See comments on the Review page. Fred Hsu 02:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayman Al Zwahiri

I'd like to applaud your good judgement for removing the question about Ayman Al Zwahiri from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: it really wasn't going anywhere healthy, and in retrospect replying wasn't very constructive. Sum0 22:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I worried about blanking a section; it seemed a bit drastic. It's easy to be sucked into replying with that sort of thing and I could feel the evil gravitational forces pulling my fingers to the keyboard. But it was a statement looking for trouble, and a chat going nowhere good! Skittle 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I see the anonymous vandal virus (AVV) is spreading, thank you for rv my page. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proxies

> I never understand why vandals add / where ' is. What's the point?

It means that they are editing through a poorly-written open proxy that doesn't handle escaping some characters correctly. Thanks for the revert. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petrarchan!

Thank you very much. Very few people attempt the Petrarchan. Mostly, folks either go for the Shakespearean or for the absolutely impossible Spenserian, and I've had one person keep promising a Skeltonian! Needless to say, it has never materialized, as I'm not sure anyone could bear to read enough Skelton to imitate him. Geogre 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding ===Shirts===

Don't mean to butt in btu that section probably needs to be removed, wouldn't you agree? It's eally detrimental to the article in question. STGM 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what doesn't have the same pull?

Regarding Atari, what I meant is that you don't see people wearing shirts with the Nintendo logo; & if there are, I haven't seen any, or via extrapolation, not as much. Is it a meme? Was it due to mad advertising? But if it was due to mad advertising, how come Atari logoed tshirts only started to appear in the late 90's? I hope I explained this further & helped. & as how Atari comes into this, it is similar to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles phenomenon on tshirts, eh?


Thanks for the help by the way, you can contact me (Sorry, removed your email address to avoid it being harvested. Skittle 11:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)), too that would be great.


Thanks!



24.70.95.203 05:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)




Yes I thought it had somthing to do with the Oldskool Appeal, but the thing is, there are A LOT of other things that could have the Oldskool Appeal, yet it hasn't caught on, i.e., game shows; how come they don't have shirts Advertising games shows in the past, for instance.
Regarding Identifying Other People Who Watched Them And Liked Them As Much, I find that hard to believe;; take for example how UNlikely someone would come up to you & say, 'Hey, I like Ninja Turtles, too!' [for example]... (Any comments?)
Thanks.
Thanks for removing my email, but I already get enough spam; doesn't hurt me anymore if I get more.
Please contact me iooiioioo@hotmail.com, too that would be great.
24.70.95.203 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vestigial structure

I figured I should alert you that the article has passed GA and I have put it up for peer review.--SomeStranger(t) 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

{{Unblock|Apparently, someone with my current IP address (86.140.170.23.) insulted Brian0913 (or 0918?) once on the main page talk, and therefore I am blocked. This strikes me as unfair to me, and disproportionate to the anon who wrote a single comment. Since when did a single comment get people blocked without any discussion? And since when did people block those with an otherwise clear record without any attempt to investigate? [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 19:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)}}

I wish someone would hurry up and check this; I have things I'd like to be doing before bed. Like start a basic article on Roof racks that mentions fixedpoints, then create a redirect for them. (as per someone's question on the reference desk), and mention Iran prior to the Ayatollahs in the question on the most religiously-diverse country in the humanities reference desk. If anyone feels like adding these for me, feel free. Hey ho, blocked for a day because someone insulted Brian. Skittle 19:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the initial block. There don't seem to be any associated auto-blocks, but let me know if you still have problems editting. --CBD 20:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Just in time for a little editing before bed :-) Skittle 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B.brownii

Thankyou for the suggestions, we'll endeavour to provide better images. The request about the hooked styles was already incorporated with an explaination in the description section. Gnangarra 11:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanked for replies on Talk page. B.brownii Skittle 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I, mboverload, hereby award you a barnstar for your help in with finding errors in RETF! Thx!--mboverload@ 04:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I, mboverload, hereby award you a barnstar for your help in with finding errors in RETF! Thx!--mboverload@ 04:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with RETF. Although some would consider your contributions minor, I recognize them as a contribution every time someone uses WP:RETF and doesn't correct things that should not be corrected. Thank you sir! --mboverload@ 09:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc desk

Thanks for your response at [2]. Do you have a link to the Hansard text? --Dweller 13:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! The text is at [3]. I suggest you search for "23 Mar 2004 : Column GC289" in the text, although the whole thing is interesting if you like that sort of thing. Good luck. --Skittle 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

oh wow, apparently you have no life...it's so funny that there are people like you out there who LITERALLY monitor wikipedia sites about CHOCOLATE, to the extent that less than one minute after vandalism occurs, you anal-retentively correct it. rock on, rock on. you're an inspiration to me to actually DO something with my life.

It takes less time to 'monitor' them than it does to vandalise them. Trust me. Skittle 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, heh...your secret's safe with me, chief.

[edit] Brad Morton

Could you put this article up for deletion? It's the same as the article Sara & Kara. TrackFan 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frustrated Contributor

Hi, Skittle. I came across your name [| here] as I've been unable to effectively resolve a related problem and thought you might be able to help. I've researched, documented, and posted a number of posts on transgendered behavior, most of which have stuck, as they're heavily documented (referenced) from outside resourced. A couple, however, seem to have fallen into the sights of an admin with a past history against any deviation of men's fashion from some mythical norm. He deletes references, links, and content, citing all as "spam" or whatever he seems to come up with as an excuse that day, then bullies the posters into submitting to his edits with threats to "whack them with a wikitrout" or some such if they don't cave into his myopic view of the world.

I know, it sound's strange, but just review my edits/comments at High-heeled shoes, my [| Requst for Assistance] and you'll see what I mean.

Hey! I played HS Football! I was a pilot in the US Air Force! I enjoy wearing heels! So what? I'm among many such people, as the links above give full credence to. I'm as heterosexual as the next guy! Ignoring this trend isn't helping anyone, and trying to squelch it just adds insult to injury. What's his motive? Why does he continue to delete valid, reliable, verifiable content, while mis-labeling it as "spam" or other such nonsense? What's his next target? One of the outstanding volumes written on aspects of transgenderism? How much is he going to gut Wikipedia before someone calls a halt and questions his motives? Please help, as this whole thing is headed in entirely wrong, and personal vendettas on his part abberent to verifiable reality. I appreciate whatever, help you might provide. 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do you add a section?

Hi. thanks for removing my answer - I wasn't sure whether the questioner was being 'cute' or if it was a genuine question. No intention to offend but...never mind.83.100.253.51 15:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ==

[edit] alien

ok listen pleazse do not block me i am not joking there is the alien again standing in my backyrd tampering or something with my hose he is carrying something siler and is lokking in all the windows i am very scared do not block me iam not joking

[edit] Re: Mass general hospital

Oh sorry, see my reply to the question --frothT 19:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref Desk Request

Hi. I removed my response. I was responding more to the markings shaped like a head etc but you're right it may be best to remove it. Thanks for pointing it out, I hadn't thought about it medically, more thinking about him looking for meaning in the shapes/patterns (in which case I think everyone has markings that could be interpreted to look like something). Thanks ny156uk 07:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues with Cetacean etc articles

That wasn't exactly my point; my issue is that Wikipedia should be mentioning "all significant viewpoints of the subject" (NPOV policy); the Whale/Dolphin/Cetacea articles all specifically refer to "... evoluted from ... ". I think they're great articles, but they need to represent both the evolutionist/creationist point of view. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chester

I don't know if Chester is American or British. I didn't even know that there were two different variants. He has a Himalayan ancestor on his maternal side, if that helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auriga M36 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] =Joshw26=

Sorry, don't tell anyone this but this is a study. I have to do it for www.halfabrain.com! School work. When it's done check it out!

[edit] Joshw26

Try Telling That To my Teacher and you shall see different. Wikipedia is rarely accurate and we must test.Joshw26 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Joshw26

I am a loose nutjob from an asylum, arrest me! <Comment by Joshw26>

I don't think I did add any opinion to Death Penalty! In fact I don't think I have ever been to Death Penalty (apart from just now). 86.132.75.247 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for being stupid.MBerrill (being the owner of that IP address) 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who; born out of

You have reverted my edit of the article on Doctor Who, which originally changed

The programme was born out of discussions

to

The programme was borne out of discussions

with the comment

Actually, 'born' is correct here. Something is 'borne out by' something, but 'born out of' something. It's a figurative birth.

Here's my reasoning (ultimately for removing that phrase):

Both born and borne are the past participle of the verb "bear". However, the case born is used very specifically when referring to someone's own birth, and borne in all other cases. So, it would be correct to say "Jim was born in September", but also "Jim's mother had already borne one other child". When it's not a birth then borne is always used. See the last paragraph of the first definition of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear (quoted below in [1] in case that page changes). It was because we were talking of the discussions bearing forth the [ideas for] the programme (rather than giving birth to them) that I changed the spelling but I accept you could use the latter: this isn't a literal birth but you can have the birth of a nation, for example, and can therefore say that the nation was born (and not borne).

However, when you have the birth of someone, you say that they are born of their parents, not that they are born out of them (see eg http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/born.html, quoted as [2] below). Therefore, in the specific context of this article the phrase should be:

The programme was born of discussions

but I personally find that form ugly.

As this is a contentious issue I propose we completely rephrase it. These opening two sentences are anyway overly wordy:

Doctor Who first appeared on BBC television at 5:15 p.m. (GMT) on 23 November 1963. The programme was born out of discussions and plans that had been going on for a year.

is more concicely phrased as

Doctor Who first appeared on BBC television at 5:15 p.m. (GMT) on 23 November 1963 following discussions and plans that had been going on for a year.

So I will change the text to that and the contention goes away!

Ros0709 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

--

[1] Usage note Since the latter part of the 18th century, a distinction has been made between born and borne as past participles of the verb bear1. Borne is the past participle in all senses that do not refer to physical birth: The wheatfields have borne abundantly this year. Judges have always borne a burden of responsibility. Borne is also the participle when the sense is “to bring forth (young)” and the focus is on the mother rather than on the child. In such cases, borne is preceded by a form of have or followed by by: Anna had borne a son the previous year. Two children borne by her earlier were already grown. When the focus is on the offspring or on something brought forth as if by birth, born is the standard spelling, and it occurs only in passive constructions: My friend was born in Ohio. No children have been born at the South Pole. A strange desire was born of the tragic experience. Born is also an adjective meaning “by birth,” “innate,” or “native”: born free; a born troublemaker; Mexican-born.

[2] Write “my love of dance was born of my viewing old Ginger Rogers-Fred Astaire movies,” not “born out of.” The latter expression is probably substituted because of confusion with the expression “borne out” as in “my concerns about having another office party were borne out when Mr. Peabody spilled his beer into the fax machine.” The only correct (if antiquated) use of “born out of” is in the phrase “born out of wedlock.”

[edit] archiving

Now that you know what template to use, could you take over the rest of the catchup archiving, I really need to go now, will be back online later tonight.

<noinclude> {{subst:Archive header|20|January|Entertainment|2007}} </noinclude>--VectorPotentialTalk 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops

Big mistake on my part. I too have several windows up, pulled the trigger on the wrong one. My apologies. CiTrusD 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical guidance removed

...on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk: you done good. In fact, your action serves as a reminder that other editors who regularly patrol the RDs, such as myself, could've done so too. Therefore I noted my support for you there, and also queried about a banner template with standard wording to make this action easier. -- Cheers! Deborahjay 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mini Horses

Just a heads up that our friend Ssillett‎ is back and trashed the miniature horse article again, an anon IP also made a bunch of edits with some nasty comments, too. A couple of things the anon added were legitimate, but once again all my citations were removed and I had to revert the article, then go edit by edit to relocate the good stuff. What a pain. Citations may not be to pages as specific as they could be, but they need to be improved, not deleted. Sigh. Anyway, just encouragement to keep an eye on this one. We can always improve the citations, but it's not right to trash them for being to the home page instead of some internal page within the web site. It isn't that tough to click two more links, is it? What is with these people? Next time, I am going to start giving them vandalism tags...Grumble... Montanabw 05:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archery reply

No, I didn't mind you 'calling in' to discuss longbows. I quite agree with the pulling power of the English longbow (which was immense). But there are two other factors to take into account (as I understand it). 1. the arrowheads were predominately made of soft iron (too expensive and difficult to use hardened iron on such massive scale.). 2. the hardened steel of (good) plate armour was immensely strong, and able to deflect most arrows. Amazingly, mail was also remarkably resistant. If you put mail on a dummy target, and shoot arrows at it, then they usually pierce. However, the Royal Armouries carried out research using mail hauberk mounted on a vibrating/moving dummy to simulate the movement of a warrior. The constantly shifting and rippling mail links were significantly stronger and could resist the arrows. The problem is, I cannot remember which journal I read this research in, so I can't direct you to it. I wish I could remember as I've wanted to refer to it a few times. As for the soft iron, I do know that was discussed somewhere on one of the talk pages here. I'll search it out. Basically, this means a well equipped knight was fairly protected in war: a fact attested by the numbers of these killed in battles (most died in routs). It was the poor man-at-arms who bore the brunt of most of warfare. Does this tie in with what you have discovered in your research? Gwinva 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Bodkin point and discussion at Talk:Chainmail#Arrow resistance for various views on the subject.Gwinva 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy bear to Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the rest of your frigid life"

[edit] I do respect the 3RR rule

I do respect the 3 RR rule as i said to ArthurWeaseley |here.--Peace237 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi you ve been noticed

Re Dame A Owens .... where should it appear in a list ... under D, A or O? Victuallers 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... thought you were more than a bounty hunter ..... I am from wikiproject schools ..... more chiefs trhan indians ...Victuallers 17:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communication Breakdown

Thank you for your edits to Intro to Evolution; I think there was a miunderstanding concerning the criticism of the quote box vs block quote, please see the talk page for additional clarification. Cheers --Random Replicator 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/i/User_talk%7ESkittle_ca94.html"