User talk:Baegis/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Merry Christmas
2 inflammatory?
3 Response to your comment & action
4 Just a note
5 RE: Evolutionism
6 insult
7 3rr warning
8 Vandalism
9 Dana Ulman
10 Revert
11 Evolution as pseudoscience
12 Hey quit stalking me
13 meatpuppet?
14 User page
15 Galileo Userbox
16 Edit summary

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

inflammatory?

I think your characterization as inflammatory is unfair. It was levity, humor, intended to lighten up. Did you read the actual image? Clearly humorous. Ra2007 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to your comment & action

Actually, changing a heading from "Personal Attacks" to "Troll Attacks" is NOT warranted -- in fact, it's also an example of a personal attack. Thank you. Goo2you (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

As much as I find the "archiving" actions of Smith Jones (talk · contribs) to be discourteous, it really is his/her right to move or remove content from personal user talk space. There's plenty of other editors in better standing that do this, including several administrators. So, just ignore this bit of petulance. Cheers, — Scientizzle 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Evolutionism

Hey, Baegis, did you notice that the second time I explained myself? This time I'm going to have to put a notice on the Discussion page. I understand that the first time I got a warning, but the second time is bullshit, you just disagree with my edit. You can't ban me for disagreeing with my edit! I explained myself the second time! You can dispute that, but you can't say "next time you'll be banned"! If you ban me over that... well, what to do? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey broski, golic was the big brother of Bill Kocevar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpokorny08 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

insult

please refrian from personal attacks. it is obvious from my statment that i was referring to creationism, crystal healing, and other fake siences as moneygrubbing frauds, not the practictioners themselves. i would rather you assume good fiath than place unncessary warnings on my talk page> Smith Jones (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Refering to creationism as a moneygrabbing fraud is attacking the pastors who really believe it and creationists too. If you had a business, and I called it a fraud, would take it personally? RJRocket53 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

3rr warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homeopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Baegis (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Do not vandalize the Origin of the Species page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternian4ever (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ulman

I didn't mean to say that persecution means that she or I are correct. Only that present knowledge makes homeopathy implausible to most. Anthon01 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Please explain your reasoning for reverting my good edit on the talk page of Duane Gish. Calling someone's position an "error" is clearly a violation of NPOV, and disagreeing with an edit is not grounds for reverting it. Thank you. GusChiggins21 (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed with GusChiggins21 that "error" is problematic, as it doesn't cover the possibility that it's a blatant lie, so I've used "incorrect" instead.[1] . . dave souza, talk 12:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as pseudoscience

It was off-topic for Creation Science talk, so here is a link to get you started tinyurl.com/3x89xn Note:"Evolution" has many meanings - in this case I refer to the unobservable, such as Common descent, not "sideways" evolution such as speciation due to natural selection. ^ross ^nixon 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the same ole pseudo intellectual creationist/ID bullshit. I book marked it in case I ever need a good lark. Baegis (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey quit stalking me

How dare you get involved here. ROFLMAO. Do you know how much junk science is in Wikipedia? Quite a bit more than the number of non-H₂O molecules in a homeopathic solution! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, but you are forgetting that those molecules "remember" their buddies from 12-200 trips ago!!! Baegis (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

meatpuppet?

what the crap is a meatpuppet? Bouncehoper (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A marionette that subsists on a diet solely of meat and its derivatives. Baegis (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

...how is that different than a sockpuppet? (also, makes me hungry....) Bouncehoper (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets, of course, eat cotton products, which are severely lacking in nutrition and deliciousness. Baegis (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How....strange....lol. thanks! Bouncehoper (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but, I come across here from ANI (you thread is just below my posting). I have a headache for some tedious sockpuppet cases and your conversation is fantastic! If you don't mind, can I use it as quotation? You have a good sense of humor, I think. I look forward to hear your reply. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, feel free to use it! Glad to see I can bring a laugh or two to this place. Baegis (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! It really bursted me into laughter. :) --Appletrees (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User page

I would prefer if you didn't move article talk pages to my personal talk page. Thank you. GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Galileo Userbox

Did you get that from me? I said something about everyone thinking Copernicus was wrong... RJRocket53 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

This was a bit excessive, don't you think? —Whig (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am sure I can expect a WQA for that edit summary soon. And I know about the probation, because it is clear to anyone who edits any homeopathy article. Thanks though. The probation has only been going on for several weeks now. Baegis (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone may be aware of the probation, but the terms of that require everyone be individually notified nonetheless. —Whig (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who edits the probation page is already on notice that such a probation exists. Pretty sure it says that explicitly. Why else would you edit the page? Baegis (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you hadn't edited the probation page, only the incidents page. I know it may be a stupid formality, but it does no harm to make sure that the ts are crossed and the is dotted. —Whig (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)