User talk:Ec5618/Human

Wave power

FYI, Ultramarine added the info that, upon closer inspection, is indeed duplicative. I apologize for accusing you of removing info but it would help matters if you would create a short checkin summary to go along with your changes. Sorry again. zen master T 21:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stratellite

Stratellite revision is very good and very up-to-date. My compliments. I have some public domain photos from April 12th how do I include them in the article? Jimcognito

First of all, thanks for being a sport and taking action.

A quick guide to uploading images:

1. .jpg format is preferred for photographs, while png is prefered for drawings/computer generated images. Large images are allowed and pose no problems.
2. Please make sure the file is descriptively named. Long names like "High Altitude Communication Platform Stratellite.jpg" are supported, and are both general and specific.
3. You can upload to different wikis (Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikicommons). Uploading to the Commons allows the image to be used in all wikis, but only public domain images can be uploaded here. Still, I'll asume you'll want to upload to the Commons.
4. Only registered users can upload. Please register at the Commons.
5. Once logged in you can go do Special:Upload.
6. Self explanatory, really, find the file on your computer by browsing. Enter a brief description using words people might use to find an image like yours. Airship, stratospheric and Sanswire come to mind.
7. Check the box, if you're legally entitled to do so.
8. [Upload file]

Ok, that should take care of the uploading. Adding the image to the article is a whole other matter.

1. Open the Stratellite page
2. Click on 'Edit this page'
3. Create a line of whitespace above ===Details=== (to add the image next to the Table of Contents), add code like this:

[[Image:Fullnameoffile.jpg|200|thumb|Caption for under the image]]

• The number 200 defines the horizontal maximum size of the image
• thumb specifies that the image has been reduced in size. Clicking on a special 'thumbs'-icon in the caption will enlarge it to full size.
• caption. Please be brief. Something like: 'Image of a Stratellite in flight' or 'Artists impression of a Stratellite in flight'.

Thanks, and good luck.

Hello, I am Hadhuey from the German Wikipedia. I wrote there some articles about airships and of course the Stratellite too. I would like to use your pic for my article too. Could you please upload it to Wikipedia:Commons? cheers Hadhuey 12:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Vaneless ion wind generator

Do you have a reference for the existence of this as a power generator? The only things I can find on Google point back at Wikipedia - which makes me think this is a Wikifiction at best. --Wtshymanski 04:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eye

Great work on the eye article. It's been needing a good rewrite for some time now. Sayeth 03:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Creationism - Wow

Thank you for saving my skin on the Talk:Creationism page! I was doing the best that I could, but with little avail. As far as zeal goes, I think "Aaargghh" had me beat. Now we can actually get something done! Thanks again, Salva 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to your most recent comments on the creationism talk page EC. Please note that you are getting compliments here from a christian fundamentalist who would like to turn the creationism article into a heavily biased account in favour of creationist explanations for the origin of life. It is very important that people such as salva do not get what they want if Wikipedia is to remain a respected resource for information. Aaarrrggh 12:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if Salva will present valid points, I will, and you should, listen to them. Any post that will contribute to Wikipedia becoming/remaining a "respected resource for information" should be included. -- Ec5618 17:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Xx01.jpeg

Can you point me to the discussions where this user refused to provide a good source. A few minutes digging of mine could turn up anything. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 12:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Silly my, I forgot to check Talk:Creationism. I see it now. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 12:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Creation Science

I believe that a more correct statement would be "As such, they dismiss interpretations of observations that do not fit ...." Dan Watts 17:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me, please be bold and make such edits if you feel they should be made. The article is as much mine as it is yours. -- Ec5618 17:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. Dan Watts 17:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Renewable energy

I think your edits are more biased than mine were. You are stating unequivocably that oil is not renewable. I am trying to show both sides of the argument. Please educate yourself before pointing the finger.

I never deleted your comments, but I am thinking of checking them thoroughly. Nevertheless, cliaming that Peak oil is perhaps a myth, based on the fact that its possible to synthsise oil (which requires energy) is ridiculous. -- Ec5618 22:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Creationism image

Hey, thanks! It was quite easy to do... I'm glad you liked it! --Ikescs 21:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Trolling? Bias? section of Talk: Creation Science

How do I now respond to Bensaccount's statement "It is not an honest observation, it is misrepreseting known facts as something that they are not" which is now archived? Was I just too slow in garnering a rebuttal? Dan Watts 00:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. I have a tendency to archive things, and sometimes a bit too soon. I find that archiving (and basically removing a lot of redundant commentary) from the Talk page, helps people get over their tendency to ramble.

The cleanest way of responding to an archived discussion (and I apologise again for creating this problem), is to quote it (in part), in a new section. But, to be honest, I don't see why you would want to comment. I would let sleeping dogs lie, in this case. -- Ec5618 07:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

My concern was that some third party could take Bensaccount's "not .. honest" statement, and (I believe inappropriately) apply that to the reputation of Dr. Lammerts. While I have no belief that the truth of the matter will change Bensaccount's (or anybody's) mind, it was my referencing Lammerts' work initially that precipitated the comment, and I feel it would be reasonable to show some detail of experiment design and results reported as rebuttal to the charges that his work was a "misrepresentation of known facts" (and also to show the use of logic in the study design - a quality that has been stated as underused in creationists). Dan Watts 11:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion: create a new section, refer to the archived discussion, and be clear. Try to stick to undisputabe facts. As I'll probably be archiving a few more sections of the Talk page, I'll make sure put your retort underneath the original discussion, in a subsection for example. -- Ec5618 11:25, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Evolution

I responded to your questions regarding why I think several better options [other than evolution] would make more sense on the Theory article

Phantym 05:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello, I have been impressed with your impartiality, and I would like for you to please take a look at Creationist Cosmology, where I have asked for a RFC on the NPOV there. I have detailed in the discussion how Joshua has repeatedly violated several portions of wiki-ettiquette. One exmaple of this is reverting twice text he didn't even read [removing an entire cosmological theory from the page] and then claiming that no such theory was removed. He has then attempted to argue (afte realizing that he did remove an entire theory) that it was not a theory, or was not a creationist cosmology, etc.

Please compare my version (which I have stopped reverting to pendign the RFC) to the version he continues to emplace.

Thanks! Phantym 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I am hardly an expert on the matter. For now, I'll say that 'Joshuaschroeder's' version contains some unwieldy syntax and logical errors. However, 'your' comment that "A repository where Humphreys has answered many questions from his critics can be found at Humphreys Answers Critics" is hardly NPOV. He may have attempted to answer some questions, but since no-one has subsequently been able to comment on this page, his 'answers' are suspect. There has been no peer review of his claims, as it were. His 'answers' should not be presented in this way.

"This cosmology has been criticised on a few grounds:" Clearly, both 'a few' and 'several' would be POV.

I'll review both versions in my own time, but I am confident that we should be able to create a version I'll be happy with, if you don't mind the implication. -- Ec5618 18:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I hope you will agree that Joshuaschroeder's removal of an entire cosmology was completely out of line (I am sure he just didn't even both to read my editing). I would be fine with responds instead of answers, but Joshua's constant choice to preside as judge and jury over another scientist's claims is, I think, clearly inappropriate. I appreciate your time. - Phantym

Re: Vandal 220.237.4.86

Thanks very much for the apprisal! I've given this user a 30 day block, which is the longest I can safely block a static IP without another admin complaining. Thanks to your note I was also able to undo two other instances of malicious edits of other users' comments. (I've also left a note at User talk:220.237.4.86 to make it clear to other editors that this user deserves no further warnings.) If you catch this user resuming his/her behaviour (or editing under a different IP), please let me know. Thanks again! -- Hadal 02:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creation science argumentation

Quick query: you deleted some commentary on one of your suggestions on the Talk:Creation-evolution controversy page, from me (Polocrunch) and from Barnaby dawson. Was there a particular reason that you deleted both criticisms of your idea without summarising our objections to your proposal? I am now going to restore both criticisms, as the debate that you have created is still ongoing, but will of course remove them if you come up with a good reason for doing so. Polocrunch 18:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete these comments, I merely moved them to the Talk page on which most of the discussion was contained. I'll delete the comments now, as they are duplicate. -- Ec5618 00:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. For some reason I did not see the link. Polocrunch 11:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any good idea about what to do with Bensaccount's tomfoolery? Should an official editor be called in? Dan Watts 00:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way to convince him of anyone else's good intentions in this matter. Banning him would seem to be the only way of keeping him from disrupting Wikipedia, though he could always come back, should he want to. Still, I would be in favour of banning him. -- Ec5618 00:08, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have cooled down. -- Ec5618 23:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Your recent archiving at Talk:Creation science

I note that during your archiving of the discussion at the above-mentioned article, in the "Massive Edit" subsection you removed all criticisms of Phantym's proposed rewrite of the article yet left in all comments in favor of it . In addition, as far as I can tell, the criticisms removed do not appear in any of the archives, much less the one you created. Please be more careful when archiving; the fact that comments against were deleted (apparently never to appear in archive) while comments in favor (and on your side of the argument) were left to remain not only is highly frowned upon but opens the door for other editors to allege that you are censoring them. If you're going to archive discussion, archive all of the discussion in a subsection. I'll be re-adding the deleted comments to the discussion to correct this. FeloniousMonk 16:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your moved the criticisms to Talk:Creation_science/Phantym_rewrite_proposal/talk#Comments_moved_in_from_Talk:Creation_science. The fact remains that only the comments in favor of the proposed rewrite were left on the main article's Talk page, which is problematic for those opposed to the rewrite. I'll re-add them. FeloniousMonk 16:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Another vandal

While POV editing alone isn't quite grounds for a block, I do see that Bensaccount (talk · contribs)'s edits to creation science on the 5th and 6th crossed the line from the misguided to the malicious. Unfortunately, I was away for half of Sunday and all of Monday, so I wasn't able to act in a timely fashion. Bensaccount seems to have cooled down since; would you agree to give him a second chance? AFAIK he's been a user in good standing for quite some time, and while that doesn't excuse his behaviour, I would rather wait and see before blocking—especially now that many hours have passed since the offending edits. It's also pertinent to note that I could not block him for more than 24 hours anyway, and that doing so may escalate his disruptive behaviour (which might have cleared up on its own, sans block). Is this reasonable?

Perhaps an even better option would be to request page protection should the problem continue. This would force discussion and prevent edit warring, which often results in favourable compromise. -- Hadal 03:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creation scientists

I think this is best as a redirect to "creation science". Clearly we have yet another POV-pushing creationist. We also have list of young earth creationists (or something like that, somewhere). Dunc|☺ 17:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, thank you. I was hoping someone would. My word wasn't going to shut 68.44.194.112 up. -- Ec5618 17:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

If he recreates it again it should go on WP:VFD, which will probably give us the authority to redirect it. You should also ask at WP:RFC for help if you find yourself being enticed into feeding a troll on a talk page. Dunc|☺ 22:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Future energy development

I responded on my talk page. In sort I am not srue what part of Geothermal power you are refering to but the word nuclear and/or fission does not appear in that article.

And I have responded on your talk page, as is my habit. -- Ec5618 09:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

and I Dalf | Talk 09:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Creation Science vote

Not to be pushy, but could you vote one way or the other, rather than straddling the fence? I've been going in circles with Bensaccount and now Joshua is pretty much doing the same thing Ben was with pushing the definition of CS as fact. I was hoping a consensus of votes saying it was a "view" might get him to alter his behaviour. FuelWagon

What is this vote going to prove? That the current set of editors view CS as being (non-)scientific? What do our views matter? We are but editors. Ec5618 12:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

You wrote, without signature, on my talk page:

You recently edited this article, for formatting. Please adhere to the standard Wiki-code when you edit pages. Using </br> and <blockquote> is not necessary, and referencing pages outside of Wikipedia is usually done by means of a reference-link, like so: .

Please see here with particular reference to the section describing the uses of the BLOCKQUOTE tag. As you will no doubt have discovered, the functionality of the BLOCKQUOTE tag is just as different from the standard wiki-syntax COLON markup (which uses a bastardised form of the DD tag) as is the semantic import. (Sorry to be blunt but you have caught me on the down-side of a splitting headache at the end of a bad day :-) HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Antony Flew

You sent me a message saying that Flew never fully elucidated on his beliefs. You may be right, but that bears no signifigance to what I posted. I simply said he began to believe in God, which is true.

Australia

It's completely okay. I thought it was a little funny :). Slac speak up! 23:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent problems on talk:Creation science

Don't delete other people's discussion Ec. I am not sure what to do when people start deleting huge sections of new discussion. If you continue to do this and do not restore this recently deleted new topic of discussion I will ask on village pump what should be done. Bensaccount 14:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sorry for removing the seeds of what would have been another typical Bensaccount discussion. People will eventually tire of your repetetive argumentation, and in your mind will claim victory. If your argumentation is debunked, you will forget or ignore that, and if people disagree with your claims, you will still believe your claims are 'undisputed'. You have argued that Creation Science claims Creation is observable for weeks now, without supplying any proof.

While I am a strong believer of the WP:AGF policy, I have had too many dealings with you to still assume that your actions are constructive, regardless of intent. -- Ec5618 14:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I could delete your comments, but I will refrain from sinking to your level. Bensaccount 19:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You will refrain from actually contributing a useful comment though, I note. Let's limit this discussion to a single Talk page. -- Ec5618 19:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I will take it to village pump and possible request for admin support unless you restore what you deleted and cease to delete new discussion threads. Bensaccount 19:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering notice

I should remind you that other notices such as cleanup, wikification, stub notation, and others are considered acceptable. Short notices to editors, placed at the top of a page, are hardly new to Wikipedia and are widely accepted as a legitimate part of the editing process. Unless you expound upon your objection and/or propose an alternative to my solution, I will reinstate the notice and continue my work on restructuring the article. Thanks for your concern. Ryan Prior 15:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

layout mess up

Thanks. I must have pasted back after checking spelling, without the same text selected.

Intelligent Design Link

I reacted a little fervently, true. However, I would have thought that anyone who would add such a link would have checked to make sure that it's legitimate. Furthermore, the game itself is obviously a parody, at least to my 'Net-trained eyes. Canar 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Injoined User

Thanks for reverting the anonymous user on [Agnosticism] today. The user has been injoined by the Wiki Arbitration Committee from editing any pages except his own and his Arb Comm proceedings page. See here and here . Please revert anything he does to any other page immediately with the edit summary "rv injoined user". Don't argue with him. It only gives him attention which is what he wants. Thanks. --Nate Ladd 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Creationism

Flat Earth is part of creationism as Lamarckism is part of evolutionism. Dan Watts 17:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with that, up to a point. Lamarckism was a definate part of the history of the Theory of evolution, just as Flat Earth creationism was once the paradigm of modern thought on the subject of creation.

Lamarckism was never a belief, though; it was a tentative first attempt to scientifically explain observed changes in plants and animals, which has since been disproven (and replaced). And no-one is trying to deny (remove) the fact that Lamarckism is a part of the history of evolution from the evolution article.

Also, no-one currently believes that Lamarckism is more correct or useful than evolution is. Meanwhile, there are still people who believe (notice the word believe) in Flat Earth creationism, because, quite simply, that is what religious people often do; they have divergent views which no amount of persuasion or proof could sway.

My point: Creationism has changed (I'll not say evolved). And now, many adherents of creationism seem to feel embarrassed by its past. They shouldn't. And editors most definately shouldn't try to remove historically significant information.

Meanwhile, note that the evolution article prominently mentions Lamarckism in its intro section (though less so than a month ago). -- Ec5618 22:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

If you recall the Bensaccount RfC

I've been RfC'd by SlimVirgin on violating Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a battleground. I've posted some information about how she injected herself into the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bensaccount dispute after we requested that an admin delete the RfC. It is my opinion that she brought her dispute against me on into the Bensaccount RfC and that she made the Bensaccount RfC a battleground. I've posted a description of what I think happened around the Bensaccount RfC here []. Could you provide a comment of your view about what happened around the Bensaccount RfC. You can post it here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2. Thanks. FuelWagon 18:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

solar energy in india

reference: []

Screwball

I am sure Screwball can speak for himself, but I think he was actually looking for a slightly older post. I think it had to do with someone who felt they were "thinking too much". Johntex\^talk 17:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I found the link you gave me helpful. It was the one I wanted. I'm not sure what this post by Johntex is referring to, but the one that is on my talk page is the right one. I found it incredible that people come to the Reference Desk for advice and personal inquiries about their problems. Sometimes, I feel like a psychologist trying to solve new cases and get connected with the issue and the individual. In this case, the problem was psychological and I wanted to get in touch with the person who posed the question. Since it was placed into the archives, I wasn't able to check the other comments people left for that confused individual, which is a shame because I really wanted to know more. Either way, I hope the person reached a solution to their "thinking". Thanks again for the link.

I found it interesting that Wikipedia has so many political arguments and problems between its users, all of it unmoderated and unchecked for language/factual accountability. Maybe you can explain to me something else: on MetaWiki, I saw some very insulting jokes and ridiculous articles that I didn't like at all. I felt offended to be connected to a site that allows defamation of certain ethnic groups and calls it "jokes". Perhaps what could really help me is some information explaining exactly what the MetaWiki articles are, since they seem to by-pass reason and respect and linger towards a group faction of discrimination. One thing I can refer to directly is the Discussion page for "You Forgot Poland" (regular wikipedia.org, not metawiki). It had a thread about "Everything about that country is funny, no matter what". That was directly insulting and I want some answers. I would like some help from you, which I've been pleased with in the past. Can you help me out with my dispute?

I suppose they are just blowing off steam, not every editor is constantly level headed and fair. Wikipedia policy doesn't preclude opinions on Talk pages, though it does have a problem with personal attacks. I suppose this could be seen as a personal attack. Alternatively, it seems to run opposed to Key policies specifically, nr. 4: Respect other contributors. Call them on it. -- Ec5618 08:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome To Wikinews.

Just saw you registered an acount on wikinews and wanted to gove you a warm wikinews welcome. Happy editing. Bawolff 21:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate the sentiment. -- Ec5618 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring

Good call, EC. Thanks for all the good effort. You will return balance to the force. FeloniousMonk 19:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fluffy Bunnies

Once again, Ec does exactly the right thing. "Fluffy bunnies" was pretty good. Mind if I quote you? FeloniousMonk 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

my talk pages are my own. i frequenly blank my pages because those who want to talk with me sometimes do so on personal levels and what i consider a message center i choose to keep private. you can do with your personal page as you please Marshill 19:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your message. i know all about logical fallacies, in fact I know all of them. accuse me of ad-hominem, sure, I don't mind. Its obvious to me what is taking place here. the word for it is insightfulness. there is an agenda. you are logically correct in stating that I cannot assume I am speaking with atheists. I know that I am. Now, there are some semantics that can be played here- perhaps they call themselves skeptics, naturalists, agnostics, whatever. I am well familiar with the crowd. the agenda is this: ID is a threat to science, and we need to ensure that it is not neutrally presented, but adamantly refuted.

This article on wikipedia is an article I would read on the secular web. You know what that is? www.infidels.org. Now I wont assume you are familiar with that site run by Jeff Lowder, an old friend of someone I know, but I am quite comfortable that several people who guard the ID page know all about it.

In order to protect science, religiosity must be fought. I've heard the speeches by Dan Barker, and I understand the atheistic desire to keep science pure from religion. I understand it. I just feel that its a shame to propogate such an agenda on a neutral site. This article on wiki is good enough to be on talk.origins, atheists.org, or infidels.org. Yes, its that good...from an atheistic perspective of course.

no article i have ever read on wiki is as top heavy with criticism against the source as this one. the fact that so many who despise ID are so 'comfortable' with it is a case in point.

but the real proof that this is POV is that you wont even let me dispute it! i have to gain 'approval' by you and your peers FIRST, before I am 'permitted' to dispute it. that is a shame. Marshill 07:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Heat

Since when the word heat is reserved for only energy transfer. Check the definitions of heat on the web or some reliable science books and then comment on the work of someone else. only because you authored a page does not make you the expert on the topic.Charlie 09:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ID layout

Before you make the changes to the text of intelligent design you mentioned on the talk page, I hope you'll read my comments there about why I feel Felonious Monk's version is the best one. I think we should discuss before we make any more complicated changes. I'm willing to hear your reasoning if you can tell me why you think your layout is better.

Thanks, Dave (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design; Re: your comment

I just wanted to insert a sentence that would point out that they try to derive their statements not from the writings like the Bible (which one is not supposed to question), but rather considerations that they consider scientific. As such, they, in principle, open themselves to criticism that would be considered "unethical" if you would try to make fun of the Pope because he believes in that Sun and other objects are attached to a solid sky. --EncephalonSeven 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I agree that it would be unethical to 'make fun' of the pope if he believed that, in fact, I would find it hard to restrain myself.

You want to include a sentence to state that ID considers itself scientific? And that, as such, is is open to criticism from scientific points of view. I do believe we have that covered, though I'll consider your comment on my next reading of the article. Thanks. -- Ec5618 18:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think he must believe that because this is what the Bible says:

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

The "firmament of the heavens" is the solid sphere to which God attached the objects he created so that did not accidentally fall of. I think some sort of comparison with this sort of ideas and more modern writings of the intellectual designers would help to expose the problem. --EncephalonSeven 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much Ec

When I think of all of us who worked together so hard for so long, I think of the line from Henry V We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

It was a fun ride, wasn't it? So thanks you guys, that meant a lot to me.

Who did the Thelonious with a mop artwork? Brilliant! FeloniousMonk 08:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude! You rock! Thanks for the great work on the refs on the Timeline of evolution. Kaimiddleton 19:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Therealhrw

Thank you for your post on my user page. Just learning about wikipedia methods. Obviously obtaing good content is problem. Would appreciate any advice regarding gatekeepers practices / habits / methods / cabals /etc. . Therealhrw 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dolly the sheep reversion?

I noticed you reverted a change in Dolly the sheep that changed the sentence from '...an ewe...' to '...a ewe...'. Am I wrong, or isn't "an ewe" more grammatically correct? I wanted to double check with you instead of just reverting. If it helps, ewe is a pipe for the link to Sheep...which indeed would not have "an". Well, just let me know or revert it yourself if you find I'm right. Cheers. --Syrthiss 21:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A ewe is a female sheep. Since the word is pronounced 'you', there is some confusion surrounding this word. Strictly from spelling 'an ewe' seems more appropriate, but from a pronunciation point of view, 'a ewe' is superior. While I'm not sure which version is more gramatically correct, a google search suggests that 'a ewe' is more common (oddly, some websites use both methods of spelling), so I'm inclined to keep it at 'a ewe'. -- Ec5618 00:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. :) I think I'll go inform the user who changed it to "an" to leave it as it is. Thanks! --Syrthiss 13:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Lingua varia

Ec, I'm guessing (from what you wrote re the Catalan article) that you know a number of languages. As a fellow polyglot, I was wondering what languages you know. By the way -- I appreciate the various help you've given me over the past few months with formatting, etc. Jim62sch 14:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I know English and Dutch well, and am able to read German, French, Spanish, some Italian, and similar languages. Since Catalan is quite similar to standard Spanish, I was able to discern the basic meaning of the Catalan text, though it was my first contact with the language.

When I edit other wikis I usually focus on interwiki links, fixing redirects and text removal (none of which requires me to write grammatically correct), and commenting on talk pages (which gives me some grammatical leeway). I usually visit other wikis for inspiration, but I don't often edit them.

I do not use userboxes, nor in any way advertise these facts, as I prefer to let my edits speak for themselves, to avoid accusations of preference and POV. Any personal preference shouldn't matter, really.

Wikiformatting is easy, I find. Glad I could help. Have you seen the new ref-tag? (m:Cite/Cite.php) -- Ec5618 14:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that new tag, it looks like it may be of value, thanks.

BTW: knowing French, Spanish and Latin was how I learned Catalan, Occitan, Gallego, Italian and Portuguese -- funny how easy it is when you know a few similar languages.

I use userboxes for the hell of it, and I don't worry about the POV bit. A good edit (i.e., NPOV) should, as you said, speak for itself.

One last question, do you have any good links to a Dutch tutorial? I keep lapsing into German when trying to learn Dutch.

Oh beware today, the trolls are crawling on the ID page (as you saw).  :) Jim62sch 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

May I ask how you came in contact with these languages? I can't imagine many American schools teach minor languages such as Occitan, nor can I imagine a Catalan publication peaked your interest.

I'm afraid I learnt Dutch through extended social interaction. Or, in Dutch, 'Ik vrees dat ik Nederlands heb geleerd door uitgebreide sociale interactie.' I understand that Dutch has a reputation of being hard to learn, which I find surprising considering the basic vocabulary shares quite a few words with English. Many recent additions to Dutch are basically English in fact, and many words are shared between both languages. Consider: television becomes televisie, telephone becomes telefoon, cable becomes kabel, plastic doesn't change, bed doesn't change, computer doesn't change, book becomes boek, arrogance becomes arrogantie, (hair) conditioner doesn't change, spaghetti doesn't change, lamp doesn't change, electricity becomes elektriciteit, etc.

On the other hand, Dutch grammar can be quite confusing, and shop becomes winkel (not as in German), fluorescent light becomes TL-buis (TL-tube or tube luminescent-tube), pavement becomes stoep, tree becomes boom (as in boomslang and the original meaning of the English boom), tape measure becomes rolmaat (roll-measure), doorknob becomes klink, etc.

So I don't know of any good Dutch tutorials, I'm afraid. You might want to try to read, dictionary in hand, some pages on the Dutch wiki, especially when you are already familiar with the topic (don't try ID, it's rubbish). I've been thinking of translating some pages from the English wiki into Dutch, for the Dutch wiki. I'll give let you know if I do. -- Ec5618 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Abdomen

I think your clean up of abdomen was great. I agree that it still needs work, but at least it's not an eyesore anymore. I accidentally credited your work to another user, but I made another change right after and noted the error. TheLimbicOne 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Good rework of abdomen. I was going to have a bash but I'm glad its been so well taken care of - and I nearly got credit for it! Mattopaedia 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It needs more than a little work. Feel free to have 'a bash'. -- Ec5618 16:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

>> Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.

Thanks. Since my comments were made in good faith (and refered to the editors actions not the editor - as per the policy) I think I'm in the clear then. Unbehagen 16:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

cont. Unbehagen -- Ec5618

D&D character classes?

Hi. I noticed you were working on articles about the Dungeons & Dragons character classes that seemed to be very similar to or redundant with existing articles. For example, Ranger (character class) and Ranger (Dungeons & Dragons). Do you plan to separate the two somehow? GRuban 20:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in fact. Severel of the articles dealt with mostly Final Fantasy classes. I had first planned to create a single page for all classes, however since a lot of pages link to individual pages, I concluded that creating individual pages was appropriate.

I do think however that enough material should exist to create a full article, and, barring that, I'll merge them and link the articles to subsections, as a last resort. -- Ec5618 20:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gary Gygax

The reason for my global revert is that you have editted different aspects, some of which were incorrect. The entire blockquote to the right of the article is ugly. The change of spelling of Lejendary is not a typo, but the name of the game. I don't know why you choose to use the html blockquote tag instead of the colon operator. The changed reference structures seems better. You removed some honorable mentions of him without reason. You removed the comment on the top that keeps people from claiming him not to be the sole author. In short, I don't feel like spending my time recorrecting the errors you introduced in your single edit. Please don't keep this from editting the article. Just maybe step by step and with more discussion. --None-of-the-Above 13:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive the tone of this post, but I am irked. It seems you reverted because you didn't want to spend time actually looking at the article.

I'm sorry, but I did not remove honorable mentions (though I do feel that the article is a little too adoring). I removed a very specific quote from the referenced article, by mistake, while leaving the actual mention intact. I had intended on making it into a referenced quote, by I now remember that I tried to verify the quote, but was unable to. Not replacing the quote was an oversight you could have fixed easily, just like the misused blockquote (I forgot to close a single blockquote). As for actually using blockquotes, I refer you to the Manual of Style.

About the notice at the top, I read it, but had no idea what it actually meant. Perhaps you should consider rewording the text, or possibly removing a comma.

Since I have just corrected my errors, which took all of two minutes, and have addressed all of your concerns, which too substantially longer, I am reverting the article. You are welcome to disagree. Please make your case on the talk page if you do.

Incidentally, I invite you to look at User talk:Ec5618/Laboratory, where I am attempting to audit all Dungeons & Dragons related content. -- Ec5618 14:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say I didn't feel like looking at the article. I wrote about 80% of it. I know it quite well. I know for a fact that everything has been sited. I know for a fact that the facts are correct. When you make an edit that introduces errors for which I must spend time fishing out, I consider it a bad edit. If you feel the article is too adoring, edit it, but I just ask that your edits are correct, sourced and with reason. If you don't understand something of the article, just ask. I have reverted again after I realized you did fix the edit. Thanks for the invite for D&D stuff, but for the moment, I am too preoccupied to write new articles. --None-of-the-Above 00:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

Yes, if you started one, I would join and try to help. However, I'll have to make a few important caveats:

1) I'm fairly new here, only a few months. I've never been in a WikiProject. So I don't really know how it works, or what is involved.

2) I'll do my best with the time I have, of course, but this is just a hobby. I can't make any absolute commitments. If something comes up in real life, I'll have to drop out. I imagine that's true of most people here.

3) I'm not very knowledgeable on the latest WotC d20 D&D rules. I played a fair bit of 1st edition AD&D, but haven't been an active roleplayer for 10 years or more. You may notice that my real RPG work has been with old and out of print games - Worlds of Wonder, Boot Hill (role-playing game), etc.

If any of that worries you (which it might), you can still go ahead by yourself or with others, and I'll still be happy to help to the best of my ability, just not as a "core" member.

The Wikipedia:WikiProjects page seems to recommend 5-10 people before starting. Do you know of 3 more? I understand the place to propose one is on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects - how about running up the flag there and seeing who salutes? (Err... putting up a THAC0 there and seeing who rolls high enough? :-) ) GRuban 14:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created a rough draft of a project page, for your enjoyment, at User_talk:Ec5618/Laboratory. Its main purpose, right now, is to function as a to-do list, and to communicate my intentions. I am not yet asking for any sort of commitment, and indeed, I may have to cut back on editing at some point too. I may add a proposal to the list though.

That you are fairly new shouldn't be a problem, and I have never had the honour of starting a WikiProject either. The way I see it, even if it fails, eventually, it'll remain available, and its intention clear, so anyone willing can pick up an outlined task at any point, and continue the effort.

That you know mostly older versions of Dungeons & Dragons is not a problem. In fact, since I have only read the 3.5 handbooks, I'd say we complement eachother nicely. I find I often subconciously think of older versions of the game as redundant, which you won't agree with.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about my proposal, thus far. Please leave comments at the bottom of the proposal, as it doesn't have a talk page. -- Ec5618 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bag of Devouring/Holding Mod

First, apologies if this is not the correct forum for this, but I wanted to comment on/thank you for your mods to the Bag of holding page - I've never given feedback like this before. If there's a better place, please let me know.

I added the reference to the "Ecology" article I wrote in Dragon 271, but didn't put all the other stuff you added. Kind of neat to see my name there, but nonetheless, I do have to wonder if all of it is necessary. For starters, I don't know if my name is really needed since it's up on Paizo's site. Also, I never considered the "DRAGON ECOLOGIES, would you believe..." prefix to be part of the title, per se. The first part is the department and the second is just a tagline I suggested to the editor.

I'm not going to go in and edit it or anything, but I was simply wondering if such a long citation is needed rather than just the title.

I'm flattered nonetheless. Thanks!

KNHaw 6 January 2006

I apologise, and this is most definately the right forum for comments on my editing. I had misread the website to read that the article was titled "DRAGON ECOLOGIES, etc." I have fixed the reference. I'm afraid the article will have the honour of bearing your name for a while longer, though, if you don't mind.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, as you're the author of the article referenced, would you mind sharing the text of the article with me? While the article contains a link, it links to little more than a table of content for Dragon Magazine. I'd like to include a short quotation from the article. It is my belief that references should be accompanied by a brief blurb from the text that makes it unnecessary for a reader to actually read the source: knowing specifically what content of the article is referenced should be enough.

If you feel that you shouldn't, for whatever reason, I'll understand, but I'd be grateful for any help. -- Ec5618 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got a copy and there should be no problem with extracting a piece of it as fair use (per standard WoC/TSR policy. I can send you the text and you can extract what you feel is appropriate. As to keeping my name on the article, I guess that's just my cross to bear (*GRIN*) KNHaw 6 January 2006

Thanks in advance. -- Ec5618 01:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Greyhawk

See also: User talk:Robbstrd#Greyhawk

I'm fine with having a category for Greyhawk modules. As far as the deities concerned, Vecna, for instance, should be categorized as a Greyhawk deity, perhaps in a subcategory called "Greyhawk Gods" or somesuch. Though he was incorporated into the "Core" D&D pantheon in 2000 with the release of 3E, he, as well as many other deities of the core pantheon, have a long history in Greyhawk. I've noticed a number of deities, specifically the "demihuman" deities such as Corellon Larethian,, are categorized as Forgotten Realms deities (and are mentioned in the text of the articles as such), even though they are not specific to that campaign setting. I can cite references if needed.

Speaking of references, I also noticed you edited the Vecna article so that the references I added can no longer be viewed. I tried to correct this, but was not able. Could you please explain why this was done? Thanks, Robbstrd 04:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Vecna first. The why is easy, it was a minor typo, with major effects. I used the ref-tag to add the external link as a reference, which means adding <ref> with some text, such as the actual link, and closing with </ref>. All text between the ref-tags is seen as a reference, and is displayed wherever one places the <references/> tag. Unfortunately, I didn't properly use the end tag, causing the article from that point on to be seen as a reference, and thus hidden.

As for deities in general, I see you've been busy. Excellent. There are now 5 specific Greyhawk subcategories. I don't really mind assigning a single deity to Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and the general cat, though I would like to figure out what to call the standard cosmology, so it can be given its own subsection. After all, the standard cosmology is not more relevant to more players than the cosmology in which they 'live'. -- Ec5618 12:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you've been editing the text of Greyhawk articles to begin "In the Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting Greyhawk. . . ." I assume this is to make everything more uniform, which is good. However, I would suggest having the introductory line read thus: "In the Dungeons & Dragons World of Greyhawk campaign setting. . . " as it reads better. Robbstrd 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the campaign setting actually called World of Greyhawk, then? If it is, that would be a great line.

When the campaign setting was first published in 1980, it bore the title "World of Greyhawk" (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/gh/gh-folio.htm). There was a Greyhawk supplement prior to that, but it had no setting information--it was essentially a rules expansion of the regular D&D game--new classes, monsters, & so forth. Robbstrd 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have considered just using "In the Dungeons & Dragons Greyhawk campaign setting." but I felt that it wasn't clear the game was separate from the campaign setting, partly because both are printed in italics: the line might be read "In the campaign setting called Dungeons & Dragons Greyhawk." Granted, most people will probably know what Dungeons & Dragons is, or will be able to deduce it, but I didn't want to use a line that could be seen as ambiguous.

I would prefer another alternative. -- Ec561820:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It could read "In the Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting known as the World of Greyhawk. . ." Robbstrd 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you have been including the words 'World of Greyhawk' in a number of articles, and am keen to follow your example. The Greyhawk article will probably need a small change in the intro though, as it currently makes no mention of a world of Greyhawk. -- Ec5618 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Creationism Template and categories

Your removal of the autocat from the creationism template was an excellent solution to the issue of forced categorization. I wouldn't have thought of it. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

AID-template

I don't know what you are implying. These templates get vandalized every other day. I am just the person who manages the AID, that's why I am constantly reverting. Please change it to the previous version or the AID-standard (instead of spanning the pink, make the entire box pink), because I have run out of reverts and we would have this logorrhoea eye-sore on numerous articles for hours. In case you are a brown-freak, what ever you do, just make the box smaller. By coloring part of it brown I just wanted to reflect that some nominators put it on the talk page instead of the article page. --Fenice 07:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You said in your edit-summary that you are disputing the template and that you wrote that on some talk-page. Check here: Template talk:AIDnom. You must have put it on some other talk page, probably on some similar named talk-page. Now that you know me you can repeat your dispution directly on my talk-page to make sure I find the text. Or maybe you were just not having all the informations. Still, until this is cleared up, I would appreciate it if you could do something about the layout now, because you have one more revert left. --Fenice 07:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you have still not posted anything on the Talk page, so I have no way of knowing your level of involvement with this template. All I can observe is that you continually edit the template to be less in line with standardisation.

I haven't posted on the Talk page yet, but merely wanted to encourage you to do so. I observed your edits, concluded they were contrary to consensus, and hoped you would explain your case.

The template currently matches the standard layout for such templates, apart from width. Why do you want to add flashy colours? And why do you want to remove content that is not included on the Talk page anyway?

Finally, why did you call another edit vandalism, when all it did was revert to the norm? I will not revert to your version, because I have yet to see any ouside support for it. -- Ec5618 11:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Aspie

Not again please. Prodego ^talk 17:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

All I did was revert an edit to completely change the colours from what was agreed upon. I was actually hoping that my quick aid might be seen as such. -- Ec5618 18:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just making sure ;-) Prodego ^talk 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this was more of a joke, those colors were atrocious, and Malber has previously been blocked for personal attacks including some against Aspies. Prodego ^talk 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Long overdue archiving

Thank you for archiving the Centrifugal force Talk page. I intended to propose it. Maybe this archiving will curb some of the Talk page flooding that I and others are indulging in. --Cleonis | Talk 19:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I may have responded too soon. It's not really clear to me what you intended to archive, and what you did not intend to archive. --Cleonis | Talk 19:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

implemented your changes at ref template

I implemented your suggested changes at the new reference desk template. Any other concerns, or are you planning on voting to support this? Thanks!--Urthogie 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

removing other people's entries from talk pages

Hi. Could you please let me know which wikipedia policy permits you to remove user's entries from talk pages please, less than 1 day after they were added? Many thanks, --Rebroad 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Are you talking about Anus talk, when you refered to an older spam version? ? I did in fact remove that comment, as it seemed to be a nonsense post, referring to a nonsense version that had not survived instant reversion. I believe I assumed you were either kidding, peddling nonsense or were trying to draw attention to spam. As several of these motives would constitute vandalism, I quickly removed the offending text. If you had honourable motives, feel free to add the text again, with a note explaining your point.

I'm afraid I cannot assume good faith over your subsequent edit to Evolution, when you reverted an edit of mine as being spam. Clearly, you randomly reverted an edit of mine, to spite me. I may have acted too hastily, but in any case, you were wrong. -- Ec5618 19:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Having looked over this matter after I reverted the edit on Talk:Evolution, I am inclined to agree with Ec5618. The word "spam" might not have been the idea word, but his actions were reasonable. Rebroad's action, on the other hand, was simple retaliatory vandalism. Guettarda 19:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As far as I was aware the talk pages are for discussion of the article they relate to. My entry on the talk page was directly related to a version of the article. I admit I behaved a little "eye for an eye" in response, and I apologise for that, but unless you can point me in the direction of the policy which permitted your deletion of my entry on the talk page, then I will continue to feel wronged. Thanks. --Rebroad 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly sorry you feel that way. If you had honourable intentions, again, feel free to expound them on the Talk page. In either case, I simply removed what I percieved to be a silly edit, and your subsequent actions have given me little reason to regret that action. -- Ec5618 23:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fix my page pls?

Would you please fix my user page? At the bottom, I want the small text to be in the blue td, in pale yellow. My eyes are crossed, and it was already hacked to pieces when I stole the design, and I'm all done making things work. I cannot make sense of it anymore. Thank you!!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an honour.

I have done enough to fix it visually, for now. To be honest, you might have been better off nicking on of the Main page redesign; they are generally cleanly coded, and quite pretty. As for the links, you'll note I manually changed the font colours for each. There are cleaner ways, through CSS, but this will look the same.

I took some liberties. I removed the italics, for legibility, and slightly coloured the links, so they stand out more. I hope you like it. -- Ec5618 23:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you thank you! I will see if I cannot clean it up a little more later - Its a terrible kludge of css, wiki, and html right now, I know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

rv. These changes should be examined, and possibly rewritten and readded. See talk

The comments weren't really too bad, but they do need to be at least reworded to be a bit more NPOV ("fatal" just has to go). Let's see where this gets us. BTW: you beat me to the punch -- I was getting ready to do what you did. Ah well, I guess I was a minute late and a penny short.  :) Jim62sch 14:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Snoke

Thanks. Guettarda 00:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Where to ask a question

Hi. You made me curious, you modify the font size on that page. In my browser, both the old version and the new version have the same size though. I would argue that one should either tweak the font size on all pages on Wikipedia, or otherwise tweak one's browser preferences to make text look big. Wonder what you think. You can reply here, I will keep your talk page on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say. I see no problem with a slightly increased fontsize in a Wikipedia-namespace article. It seems that a lot of people find their way to this page, but somehow miss the point of it and end up in a part of Wikipedia they don't want to be in (for example, at the Reference Desk with a Help Desk question). The page contains little text, so enlarging what little text is there shouldn't be a problem, and should get the point across more easily.

I agree though that there is no need to use colours or pictures to make the page 'prettier'. Thanks for removing the grey, by the way. I had considered doing the same. -- Ec5618 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: Bug report

I am attempting to organise WP:BUG. You filed bug reports concerning a disappearing left navigation bar and an overly wide edit box. May I ask, do the problems persist? -- Ec5618 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, fixed, but I've changed so much about my computer since that time (browser, screen resolution) that I wouldn't know. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So you're saying it was a problem with your setup somehow. Good to know. -- Ec5618 19:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, it was an absolutely real bug, seen in several environments, but I don't have the means to replicate those any more. It was pretty blatant, so if you are not getting ongoing complaints about it, it must be fixed. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sonny Jim

I looked at my watchlist, and it said that you edited my page by adding "sp". I don't get it.

Sonny Jim ^news/poll 20:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of editing your page to remove an excess l from 'colorful'. 'sp' is shorthand for 'spelling fix'. As you may not know, you can see the difference between any two versions of a page through one of the 'diff' links in the history of your user page. -- Ec5618 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ec5618.

By the way, what the heck does that mean?

Sonny Jim ^news/poll 20:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My nickname is layered, I assure you. I don't imagine I'll ever share its deeper meaning with anyone. -- Ec5618 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

AARGH!

You edit my article on Thongism? I didn't see any edits on it, so I assume it's fine. The surprising thing is that nobody deleted it. I would have thought that someone would take it as a joke. I'm not saying that it is a joke; I really did find info about a philisophical belief called Thongism (not that I'll ever share where with anyone). Please don't delete it if you're admin, or if someone who sees this is admin; It really exists!

Hey, wait. What's Species 8472? I just noticed it on the source...

Sonny Jim ^news/poll (OOPS! No timestamp)

WHOA! That's one awesome alien face!

Sonny Jim ^news/poll 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I hadn't seen Thongism before, though now that I have I am inclined to doubt its accuracy, notability, POV and verifiability, all of which are highly prized on Wikipedia. As you know, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinion. Please clarify the article, and mention why it is relevant. Please also include a source to the Thongism doctine or somesuch. I'm afraid that if you do not, I will have to nominate it for deletion. -- Ec5618 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to, I will.

Sonny Jim ^news/poll 21:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done check it if you want to.

Sonny Jim ^news/poll 21:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No harm done then. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Ec5618 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nostradamus page

Ec, thanks for aligning the text. Unfortunately it does need to be spelled out like that because it's a reproduction (of sorts) of the original title page of the book.

One other question (since you are quite excellent at formatting): I'm working on the Simon Dach story, but I'd like to get verses 3 and 4 of the second poem over to the right (bicolumnar) and verse 5 center-aligned. Now, I'm assuming I can use the same format you did for the center aligned portion (maybe), but if I right-align I'm guessing that all of the text will be right aligned, making it look silly. Any ideas? Jim62sch 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Should it be like this:

1
2
    34
  5

or perhaps

1
2
 34
 5

? -- Ec5618 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't too clear (I've had a problem with that all weekend).

It should be:

1   3
2   4
  5

Jim62sch 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) -- On it. -- Ec5618 00:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

EC, thanks for the ref-tag info. If it makers life easier, I'm all for it. Jim62sch 01:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, EC, it looks perfect! The other poem is a sonnet so it can't be boken up the same way, although it would look good centered and in a box (eventually I will get the hang of the formatting). Jim62sch 14:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: Bug report

I am attempting to organise WP:BUG. You filed a bug report concerning wikilinks showing external links icons. May I ask, does the problem persist? -- Ec5618 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It happens whenever I use a middle-click in Mozilla to open a link in a new tab. The link color changes from unvisited to visited and the external link icon shows. It doesn't happen if the link was already visted. It could be a Mozilla or a MediaWiki bug. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Though this may very well be a problem with the software, it could also be a problem with your settings. Have you tried updating your software? Have you tried editing using a different computer, and if so, does the icon still appear?

In any case, there doesn't seem to an official bug report for this yet. -- Ec5618 02:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On what basis?

Under Wikipedia policy

Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. [emphasis mine]

The material regarding Ludwig von Bertalanffy on the irreducible complexity entry has been challenged, and a citation was requested. A month after that request, no citation has been provided and so I, an editor, removed the uncited challenged material in accordance with WP:CITE. This issue has been through a small revert war and an RfC. On what basis do you have to revert my removal of the uncited challenged material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisthammerw (talk • contribs)

I reverted because your edit was against consensus. Editing without consensus is pointless, and should be discouraged. Edit warring is never the way. If policy agrees with you, and offers no leeway, then it shouldn't be hard to gain consensus for the removal.

I would like to ask you though, did you remove the info because you doubt its accuracy? It seems that atleast a circumstantial case for the information has been made on talk. Perhaps the information is accurate, which would mean removal would be detrimental to the article.

Finally, you have seen the ID article. To say that it is well cited is an understatement, because FeloniousMonk has been able to find references for every little detail, to prevent people from removing vital information. If you want to help the project, please consider locating a source for the information you are attempting to remove, as such a source would make removal unneccesary. -- Ec5618 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the RfC? The person who replied agreed that a citation was necessary. The only person to make a clear claim that a cite was not necessary was FeloniousMonk. And yes, I did doubt its accuracy because despite over a month of requesting a citation, none has been provided to support the claim that Bertalanffy came up with the term or concept. So what on earth are you talking about that a "circumstantial case for the information has been made"? Also note that consensus doesn't trump WP:CITE. So even if Felonious rounded up some of friends to decide that "We don't need no stinkin' citations" it would be irrelevant, since that doesn't change Wikipedia policy that citations are required.

As for finding a reference for the material I am intending to remove, I shall say two things about this. One, the burden of proof is on the person who insists on reinserting the challenged material. As I showed above, Wikipedia policy says that any editor can remove uncited challenged material. The onus is on Felonious to provide a cite, not me. Two, I have quoted William Paley, the 18th century theologian who predates the 20th century Bertalanffy. If anything, it is Paley who came up with the concept, not Bertalanffy. Regardless of what FeloniousMonk's past credentials on providing citations, he did not provide any citations here regarding the challenged material (and a good number of his previous citations are questionable, since some of them didn't seem to support the claims he's trying to cite). --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

EC, this is the type of test you'll need to deal with as an Admin -- I'm sure you've noticed that issues such as this take on a life of their own, especially when a single editor insists on ignoring consensus and removing statements with which he/she does not agree. It really can be quite trying and quite tiring, but I'm sure, as you've shown above, that you'll do well. Jim62sch 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out again that the "consensus" against the necessity of a cite consisted of a lone individual, FeloniousMonk. There were two people (including myself) who agreed that a citation was necessary. And what's more, there's Wikipedia policy:

Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. [emphasis mine]

What this means is that even if Felonious rounded up some friends and said "we don't need no stinkin' citations" it would be irrelevant. Proper conduct for an admin would have been to enforce WP:CITE, but instead EC ignored the policy and reinserted the challenged material. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to make this personal. A citation exists for the content, as it exists in the article: "An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist." (He did indeed suggest that some systems could not be reduced, if they were to be analysed.) As such, your claims of WP:CITE violation are, at least currently, incorrect. Can we please move on to another issue? -- Ec5618 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk

You, Ec5618 have posted the following on my (hydnjo's) talk page and I'll respond as best I can. Ec5618's comments are indented and in italics and hydnjo's comments are double indented without italics:

I'm having a hard time following you, I'm afraid, but it seems you opose most of my suggestions. Perhaps I should clarify my position then. I understand that you have been actively maintaining the Reference Desk for a while now, but I feel my contributions (or attempts at same) are ignored or brushed away with sarcasm. A few months ago I tried to make sense of the Reference Desk, and failed. Recently, I again took an active interest in the Reference Desk, and tried to explain my views. In my opinion:

1. silly questions should be curbed

I don't know what you mean by "silly questions". I have often bypassed a question thinking it to be silly only to come back later and find that another user has not only answered the question but made me realize that the question wasn't so silly after all. Also I don't know what you mean by "curbed". If you mean to delete the "silly" question then I will strongly disagree. I don't bebeive that any person should censor or alter the RD questions except to format or edit for legibility (obvious vandalism and obscenity are excepted).

2. the Reference Desk should be 'staffed' by a large number of people (with diverse interests and abilities)

I believe that is the the case. We do however welcome others to contribute so long as they're willing to put up with or ignore questions that they deem "silly".

3. the archives should be useful.

The archives should be exactly what the definition of archive is. A storage site for the preservation of material that is no longer current, ie: "stale" and no longer being responded to.

I hope was agree on these points, if not on the solutions to these issues.

In the absence further discussion, I'm not sure whether we agree on these points or not.

I suggested ways of reducing the impact of silly questions, for example, by using templates to automate certain responses. I felt that this would get the point across without sarcasm, while freeing up time so that more time could be spent answering actual questions. You responded by saying "scolding is not helpful", which really didn't address my points. You later made snide remarks, such as "That's some some freaking smart bot" and "Right on Sir", which I percieved as hostile. Perhaps it was not your intent, but you came across as positively obstinate.

"That's some some freaking smart bot" was in direct response to your suggestion that: When archiving time comes along, this question needn't be archived. I am deeply concerned about editing or censoring or otherwise restricting questions from the archives because of someone's opinion regarding the merit of that particular question. I ended that comment with "Right on Sir" as a jestfull response to the "authority" which has the power to decide archive worthiness - those with that power would definitely prefer to be addressed as Sir.

I used harsh tones in response, for which I apologise.

It seems our discussion escalated from there, to the point where you finally suggested we stop resorting to sarcasm, to which I agreed. Your next post has puzzled me since, and I hope that you can see in retrospect how it could be perceived as hostile or obstinate.

I can understand how my responses could be viewed that way, that was not my intention.

You have suggested that templates are 'curt'. I suggested that sarcasm could equally be seen as uncivil, especially since people who are not fluent English speakers might not understand the sarcastic undertone. You never responded. Could you please explain your views on this?

Sure. A thoughtful and individualized response always trumps a template response which smacks of "we're blowing you off because you don't meet our standards" or "you have been neglectful of our rules here" or some other transgression".

My current suggestion, for the record, can be found under Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Restructure with subpages. I would appreciate your input. I suggest to create a Best-of-Reference-Desk page, on which useful questions that are correctly and collaboratively answered can be displayed. Note that I don't suggest a massive bureaucracy, I suggest a collaborative effort. It seems a number of other editors agree with me.

I have no problem whatsoever with a "Best of the RD" compilation and would be delighted to participate. I'll help with the set-up and guidelines in any way I can.

For the record, do you object to the use of templates to respond to silly questions? While you say at one point "Wha! I have no objection to anyone using a template shortcut to express their position with regard to any question." you had previously stated "I'm against template replies."

You misquote me by ommision. In direct response to your statement ...and I don't see why you can't seem to see that many personally added comments are in fact more uncivil than any template. and ...I don't see why templates need be uncivil, and I don't see why you can't seem to see that many personally added comments are in fact more uncivil than any template... my complete response was "Wha! I have no objection to anyone using a template shortcut to express their position with regard to any question. My personal feeling is that it is unwise to do so. " My previously stated comment that "I'm against template replies" stands.

I ask you to please reconsider your stance, and to re-read the discussion as I have. You initial hostility (or apparent hostility), and my response in kind, seems to have made our discussion useless, which ultimately damages the project. I'm sure we can agree on things. -- Ec5618 12:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I will indeed re-read the discussion and reconsider my stance as you request. I apologize to you for seeming hostile whereas my intent was to vigorously defend my stance with regard to not picking and choosing which questions should be allowed to stand at the RD and further not trying to choose which should be allowed into our archives. --hydnjo talk 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Age of the Earth: Link Edit

Hi Ec5618: Your recent edit of the name of the new link on Age of the Earth is both uncivil and misleading. If you feel that the link is not in keeping with Wikipedia policies, by all means, remove it. Otherwise, adding a title that strikes me as "mocking" in tone does nothing to raise the level of debate or improve the article. In addition, your description of the method is incorrect. The method is not "inexact", in fact it returns very "exact" numbers. They merely have very little to do with the "age of the earth" and are in that sense incorrect. In addition simplistic is a relative term (as anyone who has heard the word "trivial" used in a math or math-phys lecture can attest to) and in fact, calculations not much more complex than this are actually used to determine the age of the earth. It seems that the term is only used to demean the author of the work that is linked to. Cheers, Rickert 18:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I didn't choose the title to offend anyone. Perhaps you could suggest a better title. As I understand it, the model is not suitable for practical use, and should be clearly labeled as such. If the basic premise on which the model is built is flawed, then the calculation will not yield a useful answer. I will remove the link for now, to avoid confusion. -- Ec5618 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Well you not only offended me but you are repeatedly offending the spirit of openess of wiki. Ati3414 22:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. A better title for the link would be "Calculation of ²³⁵U/²³⁸U at any time". However, because it really doesn't have anything to do with the age of the earth it probably just doesn't belong anyways. Cheers. Rickert 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you convince "VSmith" to leave it alone, now that we found a compromise? Ati3414 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm still not sure what the link actually adds to the article. Yes, it shows a simple calculation, but its usefulness in science has been brought into question. Perhaps you could think of a way to present your calculation as an educational tool, and a useful reference.

You could argue, perhaps, that a link to the calculation may help laymen appreciate the complexity of the actual calculations, as to many laymen, even your calculation is mindbogglingly complex. Of course, VSmith may argue in response that adding the calculation may give an unrealistic impression of the calculation that are actually used.

The second best advice I can give you, perhaps, assuming you have some control over the pdf you linked to, is to edit that document to carry a disclaimer, explaining that the calculation is based on some rather large assumptions, and should not be seen as definitive. Please look at your calculations are try to openly criticise it as much as possible. Candor. Once the link has been accepted (assuming it is) you should leave the document alone.

The best advice I can give you is to relax. Don't accuse other editors or policy of being 'the reason wiki is such a mess'. Don't suggest that what other editors say is 'bs'. We are all here to work together. You may find it easier to get people to see your point, when you are civil to them. -- Ec5618 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)