User talk:Chrisbak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Spam?

Hey Chris,

I'm not sure if there is a better way to get in touch with you, but you have removed quite a few links to sexinfo101.com in the external links sections of a few articles calling them spam.

In most cases, the sexinfo101.com links are the best additional reading any wiki visitor could have on the entire internet, and in the rest of the cases, it is one of the best. All of the links are directly related to the articles they were put on, and since they point to a free website with further information, how exactly is it spam? You included in your message to me, that i can't figure out how to reply to, a link to the external links guidelines. As far as I can tell, I am following the policies entirely... so please explain.

Looking forward to a real explanation...

Tom

Tom, I'm not Chris, but I did restore his revision: sexinfo101.com isn't a "free" site -- it's obviously commercial (e.g., one of the links on the page is "advertise with us"). Chrisbak's analysis seems accurate to me. There was nothing wrong with the existing links (which pointed at a variety of informational sites), so I'd like to know your basis for removing them all in favor of sexinfo101.com? Blimfark 06:08, 01 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Tom here... what links have i been removing? this is complete news to me! as far i can remember, i have reorganized and edited links to match the rest of the page, but i have not been removing links... There seems to be a lot of assumptions floating around, where are you guys getting your information... I'd like to see it for myself... I have had my links removed many times... quite often it is pretty clear that the one and only new link is the person behind it... but even in those cases, i did NOT remove the "bastard" and simply put our link back. Perhaps you guys are missing the changes that occur before i add our link back, leading you to believe that i made the big removal... tomk

[edit] Vandalism?

Uh, why did you label my correction of a trivia point about Maine as "undo vandalism"? If you're conducting research into vandalism, it seems that you should know what you're looking for. Penser 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)penser

I apologize for indicating your edit to the "Geography" section of Maine was vandalism, because it clearly was not under "good faith". However why did you insert "Pochnoi Point in Alaska is the easternmost point in the US" in the Geography section of Maine? Don't you think most readers of that section are interested in the geography of Maine, not Alaska? Also your statement about "easternmost" point in the US seems to be technically correct, but also a matter of interpretation - as explained in Extreme points of the United States under the section "Interpretation of 'easternmost' and 'westernmost'".--Chrisbak 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty common for articles to make a brife aside to clarify a commonly held misconception, particular when a fact is counterintuitive. Because it would seem that Maine would contain the easternmost point in the US, some might wonder where in the US could be farther east. I didn't think it was too bizarre to included a quick aside clarifying something that might seem puzzling to a reader. Penser 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Hi, Chrisbak! This is how you´ll find the Census 2000 data for ancestry: Go to American Fact Finder. Select "Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) - Sample Data." Select "List all tables". Select "PCT 16 Ancestry (First Ancestry Reported)". That´s where the ancestry data comes from. I simply did the percentage math and placed in the article only those figures which were at least 5%. Monegasque

I've just looked at the Qumran page and I see that you've added material about the Essene-Hypothesis and the scrolls. While I don't necessarily disagree with any of the material, the page is actually about the site of Qumran and its archaeology, not about sectarian speculation. Although I have avoided the DSS pages, I note that there is a fair bit on sectarian theories. Perhaps the Golb material will be more at home there, although I think all the speculative stuff about who wrote the scrolls should be separated out into a topic on their own. Would you have problems with the material being moved?

--Ihutchesson 04:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesterified fat

Sounds great to me! Badagnani 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting other people's comments

Please do not delete other people's comments off of talk pages, as you did in [this edit]. There is no justification for it, and I don't know what you mean by your comment. DreamGuy 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, it looks like it was your comment, but I still see no reason to delete it, your edit comment made no sense. DreamGuy 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes it was my comment and it was posted at the bottom of the page, not in the middle where someone put it. So I deleted it to keep it from being shuffled around further.--Chrisbak 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)