User talk:Chris Bainbridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Chris Bainbridge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War

Please stop edit warring on this article. If you were WP:BOLD, but you were reverted (twice as a matter of fact), so now you need to discuss it on the article's talk page. Ursasapien (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reapplying edits that were reverted by some random user who didn't even bother to leave a comment with his revert is hardly edit warring.[1] I've left a comment on the discussion page explaining the difference between theory and hypothesis, and see no valid reason to use the less accurate term. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I appreciate your actions in enacting the community discussion, but it's frustrating that a reference is replaced by a fact tag. I wonder if you could help supply a reference, since this is a 'good article'. [2] The JPStalk to me 13:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to remove statements if there's no longer a supporting citation. However, this offends some editors who don't like to see their contributions removed, so at the moment I tend to just leave a tag. If you think the tag is unwarranted because the statement is supported by the following text, then please feel free to remove it. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest/worst films

You may need to seek consensus at WT:FILM regarding the usage of IMDb user ratings. The editors who have reverted us are technically correct about the MOS being for film articles, but I believe the same logic applies. The dynamic process is clearly shown in the article when they have to say a particular date, as if the ranking could change. I think these articles are better off relying on static polls like the ones conducted by Sight & Sound. Time needs to be a factor in the reputation of a film, otherwise using the ratings would be an approach of recentism. I appreciate the removals you've been doing for individual articles, and these two are not so easy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brook Silva-Braga

I saw you cut out the reference to the IMdB rating. I then read the discussion at WP Film. Interesting. I'll accept that. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I put that listing in the External Links. Bearian (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch

Could I respond to your comments here or would the WP:RS/N be the appropriate place? --Anthon01 (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please comment in the WP:RS/N article so that others can read and contribute, and to make it easier for future editors to find. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immune system avoidance

Hi, I moved your section on immune system avoidance in the sperm article to spermatozoon as that is a better content match for human sperm cells. If you have a problem with that, please let me know, but it makes more sense to me to have it together with the other info on human sperm cells. Thanks! - tameeria (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Waterboarding removal of section

Not sure what happened here, but when you posted you for some reason overwrote an existing talk section to put in your own. I've fixed that. Lawrence Cohen 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB References

You removed an IMDB reference in the Ma mère article I wrote. Your comment said it was in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Why can't references to IMDB appear in Wikipedia? Please respond on my talk page. LuisGomez111 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian terrorism

I removed a reference to Hoffman in that first sentence. It looks like what we have here is a projection of the "religious terrorism" work of H and J onto "Christian terrorism", which is extremely problematic. When they talk about religious terrorism, they can say simply that the individual is religious, but when it comes to Christianity to say such a thing becomes a quite radical statement: that terrorism is Christian. For this reason, the definition needs to be buffered with the word "interpretation".

I'm not sure that those quotations below the opening belong at all, because they are talking about religious terrorism rather than "Christian" terrorism. To just throw down with so controversial a term, it really does require citation--not of the phrase "religious terrorism", but actually of the phrase "Christian terrorism". I see that Jurgensmeyer uses the word once in his own text, but has little to say on the subject. I'll go dig up some citations. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I quoted you here: [3] Lawrence § t/e 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Star Wars: The Emperor's New Clones

A tag has been placed on Star Wars: The Emperor's New Clones requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Triwbe (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars: The Emperor's New Clones

I don't know, do you really think these guys are notable. Are we potentially removing the first article about the next George Lucus ? --Triwbe (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would move the page to Backyard Productions but I do not think the article will last, the next person along is just as likley to WP:PROD (unless al wikipedians are SW fans). Also these guys had better watch out for the Star Wars trademark brigade, they could well have problems there. We will see. --Triwbe (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)