User talk:Nitramrekcap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Template 2 So it was you? 3 No prob 4 agnostic? 5 Thanks 6 Vandalism

[edit] Template

Why did you copy this template [1] on to John Schmidt's talk page? Badgerpatrol 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not "BADGERPATROL", I was trying to moderate this overheated debate over FHCC and LSD, which to me seems pretty pointless. The heated discussion says more about Wikipedia and the poor relationship between you (whoever you are) and John Schmidt, than FHCC/LSD by the way.

Although I naturally support John's views as I think he has done more than anyone to create the Francis Crick article - in the same way as Alun and REF - what must non-Wikipedians think of this argument? I hate to think! I hope John can be allowed to respond to your last response and then go to Arbitration over the whole issue rather than dragging Wikipedia's name and FHCC's reputation through the mud. I have had arguments over REF with Alun but respect his commitment to the REF article, unfortunately I cannot say the same of yourself in the same way as for FHCC.

As a distinguished, old friend of mine says to me "ENOUGH!"; alternatively 'get a life'? Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.74.204 (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, your patronising attitude would be almost tolerable if you had ever, in any way, demonstrated that you have even an ounce of intelligence. You have yet to do so, although I admire your continued- albeit at times misplaced- enthusiasm, which is why I continue to have any dialogue with you at all. I have no problem with John Schmidt. He is a long-standing and productive editor whose contributions are admirable. The dispute over the Crick/LSD issue is an honest content dispute. If it has become heated, it's not down to me- I believe that I have done everything possible to conciliate. Provided he maintains civility- and although he has lapsed in this regard, he does appear to have moderated his tone recently, which is welcome- I look forward to working with him to improve the article. I am surprised that you appear to place yourself in a position to castigate other editors' commitment to any article given that your own edits are at best insubstantial and at worst worthless and counter-productive. Similarly your style of dialogue on talk pages is almost uniformly patronising and unproductive. In this case, I think John is wrong, whether you "naturally support" his views or not. I believe most of those who have had input agree with my position- and in any case, support for a position should always be based on a rational analysis of the arguments at hand, rather than a misplaced tribal support for an editor based on your perception of his or her's contribution to an article (and JS' contribution to Francis Crick has been great). I look forward to any arbitration case that may arise, although since the arbcom do not (to my knowledge) make decisions on content disputes, and since the last I saw, John was contributing to the debate in a constructive way, I suspect that won't be happening. I also look forward to the day when you can fully harness the power of your mighty intellect and remember to log in from a consistent account and sign your name when you leave comments. As it seems you are all too aware, I have recently had a short wikibreak, brought about not least by stress resulting from my dealings with pests like you. I am back now, and I will get around to making the necessary edits to Francis Crick, in accordance with what seems to be the emerging consensus, and with input from John and any other interested parties, when I see fit. (As an aside-if it is you who has been vandalising my talk page and that of others- don't. The ice on which you yourself tread becomes ever thinner.) Badgerpatrol 15:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So it was you?

So I am assuming that it is you who has been editing my user page. Please be aware that editing another user's page is considered vandalism on Wikipedia. I also noticed that you have also edited Badgerpatrol's user page, and that you have liberally spread certain templates arround Wikipedia indiscriminatelly. This sort of behaviour really is considered vandalism. Knowing you as I do I am assuming this was done with the best of intentions and not as a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. So this is just some friendly advise, please refrain from inappropriately placing templates on other users pages and talk pages, and please don't put user templates such as the wikibreak template on to article talk pages or to do lists on article talk pages. Other users are quite capable of placing these templates where they appropriately belong without your help. With regards to the Discovery of DNA template, as I remember it it was you who strongly objected to the brightly coloured JWSchmidt version and asked for it to be toned down. I also remember discussions on the RF talk page regarding the validity of having so many people on the template, some of who may have only contributed tangentally to the discovery of the structure of DNA. Personally I feel that the discovery of the structure of DNA template only needs to contain the four main players during 1953, which is after all when the structure was discovered. It is perfectly acceptable for the other people involved to be mentioned in the text of any given article and their Wikipedia articles to be linked to in a see also section. An alternative proposition is to have a template for other people independent of the main template that contains Crick, Franklin, Watson and Wilkins. Indeed such a template may already exist, I'll have to check. All the best. Alun 09:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

ditto

Why did you copy this template [2] on to John Schmidt's talk page? Badgerpatrol 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not "BADGERPATROL", I was trying to moderate this overheated debate over FHCC and LSD, which to me seems pretty pointless. The heated discussion says more about Wikipedia and the poor relationship between you (whoever you are) and John Schmidt, than FHCC/LSD by the way. Although I naturally support John's views as I think he has done more than anyone to create the Francis Crick article - in the same way as Alun and REF - what must non-Wikipedians think of this argument? I hate to think! I hope John can be allowed to respond to your last response and then go to Arbitration over the whole issue rather than dragging Wikipedia's name and FHCC's reputation through the mud. I have had arguments over REF with Alun but respect his commitment to the REF article, unfortunately I cannot say the same of yourself in the same way as for FHCC. As a distinguished, old friend of mine says to me "ENOUGH!"; alternatively 'get a life'? Martin

• I was trying to moderate this overheated debate over FHCC and LSD, which to me seems pretty pointless.
• Ah well, your personal opinion about the pointlessness or otherwise of any given point of view is irrelevant. You may see it as pointless, others may see it as important. Wikipedia is not here to promote any personal point of view, whoever's point of view that may be. Bagerpatrol hse the truth of it, irrespective of your personal opinion. I don't give a bugger about any spelling mistakes I may make, Wikipedia policies also make reference to editors making typos, which is common, but not synonymous with vandalism or pedantism. It is noted that typoes are normal to any editor and we should not make personal assumptions regarding such mistakes. Again I urge you to refrain from pushing you own personal opinion and read and understand WP policies and guidelines. Alun 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No prob

No problem Martin, the comment was made in frustration and not anger ;) Take care. Alun (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] agnostic?

The article mentions Crick's agnosticism casually....I wonder why Wikipedians keep trying to list Crick as and atheist. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

John, well spotted sir! (I missed it) I have asked Bob Olby to clarify asap just in case! Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi martin, thanks for the article. Much appreciated. Alun (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Comments about the inaccuracy of Churchill College website should not be posted on the New Hall page. I do not care if the Master has acknowledged your point, it should not be on Wikipedia. This is vandalism if you refer to the Wikipedia writing guides. (WikiWebbie (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC))