User talk:Neitherday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hit the wall Neitherday is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time.

Contents

[edit] RE: possessive terminology discussion

Hi Neitherday. Do you mind if I copy the discussion we had on the Project gender studies To do talk page to the new talk page? I'd like to do this so that any new comers to the discussion can see all the relevant points--Cailil talk 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Go right ahead. Neitherday 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning tardive dyskinesia

Clozapine belongs to atypical antipsychotics, and it seem to cause less extrapyramidal symptoms (AFAIK), including tardive dyskinesia. So the phrase that you have deleted, distiguishing the typicals as more harmful in this respect, may be relevant. Best regards, CopperKettle 15:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. But I agree that the article needs improvement and more sources should be cited. CopperKettle 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the phrase because it was stated twice in the opening paragraph and only needed to be stated once. Neitherday 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Feminists for Life page

Hi Neitherday, please keep an eye on the Feminists for Life page, the same person who vandalised it the last time is there again, and is making the same complaints and demands again, and it is probable that they will attempt to vandalize the page again. It is the same person that attempted to delete the pro-life feminism page, because they didn't like it either. I have tried reasoning with this person, however they refuse to listen, and complain that I am making personal attacks when I tell them they are making unfounded claims. I would appreciate any help you could provide. 216.255.40.133 04:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arlington edits

Greetings & thank you for your improvements to the Arlington page. I moved the "unref" template out of the History section because of the layout problems it was creating - a vast empty space, following a smaller one, near the top of the page. You put this back. There must be a better way. Can the template be shifted to the left and/or shrunk? Hertz1888 16:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I solved the problem by adding references, thereby allowing the unreferenced template to be removed from the section. Neitherday 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That certainly finesses the problem. The page looks much better now. Thanks. Hertz1888 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible disruptive editor

Hi, I see some of what Bremskraft has done on the article and agree that they seem to be acting in bad faith although I'm not an administrator so unable to really dig through to verify if they've been an editor for a while or what. I've prodded on their talk page for a response to talk page comments that were removed and we'll both have to keep an eye for future activities. Benjiboi 22:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

user has been blocked for 24hrs and seems to have a pretty zealous pro-life conservative POV with religious leanings. My hope is that they'll be more constructive as an editor but keep an eye out for every edit as they do seem persistent. I've added some content to Feminists for Life btw. Benjiboi 09:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Apparently Ladeda76 did turn out to be another sock puppet as well. [1] Neitherday 14:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] email

Hi Neitherday, I sent you an email last night - before recent developments in the Bremskraft situation--Cailil talk 23:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed it, I get so much spam and always set up folder for people I know. Emails from new people can get lost in the spam, sorry about that. I will reply. Neitherday 23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gendercator

I don't consider a deletion to be a "salt the earth from the topic" situation, so if you feel strongly that there should be an article, go for it. That said, I suspect the subject is not of lasting interest or notabiity, and that writing about it is a bit presentist. Phil Sandifer 21:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power and Control

Sad to say this article has been deleted, I could ask for a review, it would be easier I think to start where it was then begin from scratch, I suppose I have a talk page and will look there for commentsBobV01 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia debate

Could you please spend a moment to add your 2 cents to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Sections vs. collections and also Wikipedia:Requested moves#September 12, 2007? I think that you had strong opinions on this matter on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Trivia, so in the interest of community consensus I'm letting you know of these two pages where debate is continuing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Public Debt Graph

Hi Nietherday. I've responded to your concerns with the public debt graph on the talk page, and put the graph back into the article. I've also added source information to the image page. Please let me know if you have any further questions, thanks! Citynoise 13:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

... is here.  :) Photouploaded (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Censorship"

I don't think that "censorship" is really a useful charge to employ here. Article talk pages aren't "censored", but they are subject to the talk page guidelines. Comments that are clearly throwaway remarks designed to provoke or inflame controversial topics, and contributing nothing to article improvement, can and should be removed from article talk pages. Please see the talk page guidelines; "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" is clearly listed as appropriate. Do you think that comment contributes to improving the article? MastCell Talk 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the editor in question is asserting that they disagree with the assertion that Sanger's belief's were among the norm among American intelligentsia of the time — which is reliant to that discussion thread. I agree that they should have phrased their comment in a less inflammatory manner, but it is still relevant to the discussion at hand which was about improving the article. Neitherday (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Imperial Emblem.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Imperial Emblem.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Kali's teeth bracelet

The "old self-published geocity page" link you removed is one of the last remaining publicly accessible pieces of documentation from the circle of individuals who were originally responsible for inventing the Kali's teeth bracelet in the first place (or individuals very closely affiliated with them). Furthermore, when you removed this source, then someone popped a "nosource" template on the page. Furthermore, it has quite a bit to do with female dominance (in fact, the Kali's teeth bracelet was invented for the specific purpose of being a female dominance accessory). AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article's talk page. I have responded there. -Neitherday (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kali's teeth bracelet

I don't have any problem with deleting this article. It reads like a lot of OR and somebody's personal fetish. Corvus cornixtalk 02:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Canada Goose

From the Library Journal:

McQuain, guest columnist for William Safire's "On Language" column in the New York Times Magazine, surveys "memorable terms" from the "Pathfinder" of the 1840s to the Pathfinder mission to Mars. What he describes as a "systematic explanation" of the historical progress of the American language is divided into three chapters that only partially suggest their content, referring broadly to the person/ spirit, the intellect/mind, and the emotion/heart of Americans and their words. Unfortunately, this narrative format is not user-friendly. The words and their background stories are fascinating, but the book would have benefited enormously from either an index or a different arrangement. Furthermore, the text suffers from the misuse of some words (e.g., "Canadian" goose rather than "Canada" goose) and redundancy (e.g., the "urban legend" featuring alligators in city sewers appears twice within the "tall tales" section). Since the book is well researched, it seems a pity the material isn't better edited and more accessible.--Cathy Sabol, Northern Virginia Community Coll., Herndon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent reference, I believe it should be added to the article. Thank you for finding it. I'd add it myself, except I don't know the date of the Time's column. However, to maintain NPOV, I think the text should read something like "Linguists, such as Jeffrey McQuain, have been critical of usage of the use of "Canadian" in "Canadian Goose", seeing at a "misuse" of the word." Neitherday (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)