User talk:Noit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you leave a comment on this page, I will reply on this page. If I commented on your page, I will look for your reply there. Thanks. Noit 19:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Air America Radio 2 Air America Radio (different event) 3 Walnut Grove Secondary School 4 Animal sexuality

[edit] Air America Radio

The user may be ranting but we have to remain civil. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gdo01 07:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments were about content: the content of the useless rant. If you want to confront personal attacks, talk to him, as his comment contained the word "you" in it. If you like next time I wont be civil at all. I'll jusst delete shit like that. Noit 07:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air America Radio (different event)

Would you please not delete my edit regarding Air America's ratings weather you are for against them their ratings are poor. Thanks Tannim 20:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)TannimTannim 20:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of my edit, it is legitimate analysis. A bias whould be stating Air America is hate radio (I personaly believe it is but I did not put it on the board)

[edit] Walnut Grove Secondary School

Sorry about that. I would have to guess I thought an anon was putting incorrect names, rather than correcting them; and the overcrowded note seemed a little POV. It would be nice if that statement had a citation, but it was my bad for not checking the article history; after all "Wally the Gator" certainly seems like more a mascot than "Sean Clary". :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal sexuality

I'm not sure what your revert was about. I assume its a mistake or you didnt read the addition?

The addition was a citation from a mainstream paper, of a quote attributed to a state wildlife department, on the subject of that section. Please let me know when you've read this and checked your revert, the diff is here.

I'm hoping this was a slip of a "revert" finger, and that you'll reply back on my talk page confirming it's okay. if not then rather than revert better we discuss on talk pages and see what the perceived problem is.

Thanks for being attentive to vandalism, but in this case it wasn't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - in light of the above just to give you a heads up, Im removing the two tags about primary sources. The person who added those clearly is unfamiliar with the page describing what a primary source is. The tags state that "The sources provided are primary sources". But in fact in both cases the sources cited are secondary sources and this is an inappropriate tag. Again just so theres no confusion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, change it back if you feel strongly about it. But, couldn't you find a quote that's not exceptionally goofy? It's a scientific article about behaviorisms and biology, but the quote you have sounds more like a comedy piece. Noit 20:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually didn't realize it was a quote when I reverted it. I just thought it was your writing. Otherwise I wouyld have talked to you instead of getting rid of it. Sorry. Noit 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to find a source that was "straight". But sources are hard to find, and often anecdotal. A citation that an official in the state department for wildlife, who see these things in the wiild more than lay people, says cross species sexual activity is attempted frequently, seemed relevant. But obviously a proper academic source saying the same would carry far more wieght.

Rather than immediately revert, I'd like your advice. The actual material is valuable and I'd like to keep it. But I agree, a humor column citation is far from ideal - it's more a case of "better than nothing if legitimate". So.... should I just leave the media citation and trim the quote down to basics? Or remove the actual quote, in order to try and make it more encyclopedic in style? Or how would you handle it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel like the factualness of that quote is in doubt. It will put everyone who reads it in the same situation we're in now, wondering if it's true or a joke. In the context of this encyclopedia it almost makes it useless. If you can't find a better source, I would say, use the quote as is, but change your actual article text to reflect the doubt. Noit 20:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)