Please do not edit this page.
This subpage is where I keep all things relating to discussion and human interaction. For anything else, please see my main talk page. Thank you.

Start[edit]

Wave power[edit]

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[edit]

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:

.jpg format is preferred for photographs, while png is prefered for drawings/computer generated images. Large images are allowed and pose no problems.
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.
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.
Only registered users can upload. Please register at the Commons.
Once logged in you can go do Special:Upload.
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.
Check the box, if you're legally entitled to do so.
[Upload file]

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

Open the Stratellite page
Click on 'Edit this page'
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)[reply]

Vaneless ion wind generator[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Renewable energy[edit]

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[edit]

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

Trolling? Bias? section of Talk: Creation Science[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [1]. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Future energy development[edit]

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)[reply]

Creation Science vote[edit]

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[edit]

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: [2].

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Recent problems on talk:Creation science[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering notice[edit]

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[edit]

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

Intelligent Design Link[edit]

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)[reply]

Injoined User[edit]

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 [3] and here [4]. 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)[reply]

Creationism[edit]

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

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)[reply]

If you recall the Bensaccount RfC[edit]

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 [[5]]. 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)[reply]

solar energy in india[edit]

reference: [[6]]

Screwball[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Welcome To Wikinews.[edit]

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)[reply]

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

New leaf[edit]

Looking over my edit history over the last few months I am displeased. Continuous battling with displeased editors has left me jaded, and quick to judge. I'd like to return to my roots now. Prepare to meet a calmer, more gentle Ec5618. 12:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring[edit]

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

Fluffy Bunnies[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Definition of Heat[edit]

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)[reply]

ID layout[edit]

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)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

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)[reply]

Intelligent design; Re: your comment[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks so much Ec[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Therealhrw[edit]

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)[reply]

Fascinated[edit]

What is ec5618? Error code from something? And how so your page is redirected? To where? You one of the big guys? Wikipedia founder/creator?? Wikipedia fantastic. ~~ HRW not logged in.

My userpage redirects to my talk page, because I prefer to let my edits and discussions speak for themselves. My username is a long story, and I'd rather not get into it. And no I am not a 'big guy' at all, though I've been here a bit longer than you have. I am most certainly not the founder. -- Ec5618 14:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answers. Dude, do you know of a non-sexual form of address as polite as 'gentlemen'? Per your request, I will no longer call *everybody* 'dude'. Just you. (You not *everybody*.) But 'gentlemen' is sexist. And 'ladies and gentlemen' is soooo ....stuffy. Got a word? Therealhrw 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Gentlepeople' (singular 'gentleperson') comes to mind. 'Fellow Wikipedians'. 'Fellow contributors'. 'Hey'. Mix it up. You needn't address people in every post, though. Note that I have not used any sort of title to address you.

My objection to 'dude' is that it sounds juvenile (not at all encyclopedic), which makes it hard for others to take you seriously. In the same way, your accusations of fraud, in the space elevator article, come across as ridiculous. -- Ec5618 10:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly the sheep reversion?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lingua varia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Abdomen[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Personal attacks[edit]

>> 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)[reply]

cont. Unbehagen -- Ec5618

D&D character classes?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gary Gygax[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bag of Devouring/Holding Mod[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Greyhawk[edit]

Creationism Template and categories[edit]

Your removal of the autocat from the creationism template [7] 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)[reply]

AID-template[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:User Aspie[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Long overdue archiving[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

implemented your changes at ref template[edit]

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)[reply]

removing other people's entries from talk pages[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry? Are you talking about Anus talk, when you refered to an older spam version? [8]? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fix my page pls?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Snoke[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Where to ask a question[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Follow up: Bug report[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Sonny Jim[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you, Ec5618.

By the way, what the heck does that mean?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No need to, I will.

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

Done check it if you want to.

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

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

Nostradamus page[edit]

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)[reply]

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

or perhaps

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Follow up: Bug report[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On what basis?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reference Desk[edit]

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[9].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Age of the Earth: Link Edit[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

August 2006[edit]

RFA[edit]

Hey Ec, It's not the end of the world. I could point you to many RFAs that failed by far greater percentages than your's and three months later they are promoted by a majority greater than that needed to declare consensus. So, (1) don't give on us, we like you and you like us, (2) don't blame the community for this outcome, even though you believe some of the opposes to be ill-advised, (3) read and re-read all of the RFA comments and in particular the oppose comments (difficult as that may be) and take what you will from them and (4) I believe that WP would be poorer without your contributions. Respectfully and with high hopes for your future here, hydnjo talk 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to relocate my comments to archive heaven. I thought it best to leave that up to you. Regards, hydnjo talk 00:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ec, as I said to Matt, it's a learning experience. I didn't forget you either - I wrote down in my calendar "RfA 2 admins see Feb talk archive". While that technically includes you, my ability to decipher my crude notes two months from now is yet to be determined... --M @th wiz 2020 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonmarked Houses[edit]

I added the reference.

Timeline of Evolution[edit]

I tried adding the references but failed, as I am only a starter and don't understand the referencing format you have used.

They are

John, Brian (Ed)(1979) "The Winters of the World: Earth under the Ice Ages" Jacaranda Press ISBN 047026844-1 presents the evidence for the Huronian Ice Age.
Walker, Gabrielle, (2003) "Snowball Earth: The Story of the Great Global Catastrophe that Spawned Life as we know it" Bloomsbury ISBN 0747654337 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, presents the evidence for the "Runaway Ice House theory.

Could you insert them for me

Many thanks

John D. Croft 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Aw gee... I like the star polygon! But, Sparkling prose??
Thanks! Vsmith 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Portal[edit]

I somehow screwed up the spacing between the boxes. Would you take a look at that and see if you can find the glitch? --Go for it! 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that. I fixed the problem by putting your content into a cell of the table, instead of as a seperate table at the top. -- Ec5618 14:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm done merging the content from Goings-on into the Community Portal. I've also balanced the content between columns, and the material's placement on the page roughly fits priority of presentation order. Now I just need to find someone with the magic touch who can make it look good. A couple of caveats: first, someone had a fit when we tried using the same style as the new Main Page draft -- the page needs an identity of its own. Second, the same thing happened when I removed the Help box and the Writer's resource box ("a big chunk") - but those are near the bottom of the page, and so don't compete much with the main information. I hope you can find the time to have a go at it. I'd really like to see what you can do with page design. --Go for it! 00:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed main page search[edit]

Don't revert, manually re-add the bar here's the seachbox code:

<div id="EnWpMpSearchInner">
<inputbox>
type=search2
buttonlabel=Go
labeltext=Search all [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles:
width=22
id=MP
</inputbox>
</div>

Prodego ^talk 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a mistake above, I just fixed it though, It should work now. Prodego ^talk 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the searchbox manually, it's all set up. Prodego ^talk 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Warton[edit]

Ec, I'm working on this article (it's pretty much a useless stub at the moment) but there is one problem: there is no Contents box and there should be. I can't find any coding differences between this article and, say, that of Laurence Eusden. Any ideas? Thanks. Jim62sch 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table of contents is automatically generated for articles with at least four headers. I've added __FORCETOC__ to the article, which causes a table of contents to appear in any case. -- Ec5618 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool, thanks. I tried using the help feature, but got nowhere as far as finding a referrence. Thanks! I owe you a few. :) Jim62sch 15:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonmarked Houses Part II[edit]

There is a really weird edit war on that page. We kept changing the reference styles, which are incompatible. I don't know how to use your reference style, but I don't think it's necessary - it's easier to use the style I'm using if a reference gets quoted more than once, and this is certain to happen in the future. Kimera757 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I wasn't aware of an edit war.

It's really quite simple. Just add the text you want to use as a reference between <ref> and </ref>, and add <references/> in the spot where you would like the references to end up. When the page is rendered, the references will be 'moved' and a reference link will take their place. :It is possible to assign names to specific references, so they can be used a number of times, by typing <ref name="NAME"></ref>. When using the reference again, simply type <ref name="NAME"/> :In any case, books shouldn't be listed under references when they are not linked to from within the article. There is no problem with adding them in an unnumbered list, of course. -- Ec5618 17:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ec5619?[edit]

I don't know who Ec5619 is, but his blanking your page looked suspicious considering the choice of username, so I've reverted. If it was in error, my apologies. FeloniousMonk 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so inclined, I wouldn't mind this user be blocked for impersonation. -- Ec5618 17:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinetly for vandalism and ... whatever :-) Vsmith 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin ? or Not[edit]

So are you an admin to be restoring my old talk history and rearranging my page and creating an archive ? Or are you just a person who thinks they can tell me what to do with my own talk page? Wiki policy is quite clear that a person can do whatever they want with their own talk page. I have already posted the citations. If you have a problem with those, you should contact an arbitrator.Wjhonson 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alkivar[edit]

What on Earth? Why have you blocked me? I have violated no rules, have reported an incident of 3RR, and have remained civil. I don't understand what just happened.

Your explanation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:JarlaxleArtemis is hardly clear, and it seems to be in violation of blocking policy. Please explain your actions, and please undo them. Thank you. -- Ec5618 12:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This block has stood for one-and-a-half hours, and as yet, I have received no explanation of the block other than apparently 'being WP:DICKheaded'. Can someone please fix this? I don't like to be blocked, if for no other reason than that a history of being blocked may convince other Admins to more easily block me in future. Thank you. -- Ec5618 13:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested clarification on AN and on Alkivar's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have received no reply, so am (I think) unblocking you. This is the first time I've ever unblocked, so let me know if it didn't work - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it didn't work. I'm still blocked, as is JarlaxleArtemis. We are blth still listed on Special:Ipblocklist. Thank you though. -- Ec5618 17:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the autoblock as well. Please try again and let me know. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Great, thanks. -- Ec5618 18:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#External link regarding the age of the Earth. --Smack (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the page. You're listed as a party to the dispute, and we're waiting for all parties to agree to mediation. --Smack (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal Attacks"[edit]

I don't see why you can't let Palmiro take care of himself. If he thinks that my comment is a "personal attack", then let him remove it! And besides, what he said was personally attacking all the Christian users on Wikipedia, so I told him that that is a comment that can only be made by a bigot. Let him deal with it! Scorpionman 15:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy prohibits personal attacks. Regardless of your feeling that this user is capable of defending himself, he shouldn't have to. -- Ec5618 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark featured article candidate[edit]

Hi

I'd like to put up Noah's Ark as a candidate for featured article. Since you've taken a recent interest in it, I thought you might like to have another look to see if there are any further tweaks you'd like to make to that end. (You might like to implement those changes you menti0oned, for example). Cheers PiCo 12:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up the nomination. If you want to vote, go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates and scroll down till you find the article link. Whether you support or object to the nomination, you need to explain your vote in terms of whether the article meets all the criteria for FA (to be found at the top of the page). PiCo 12:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration[edit]

I don't know if you are aware, but there is now an RfA going on concerning certain editors behavior on the Jonathan Sarfati page: [10]. Since you were slightly involved, I thought it might make sense to give you a heads up. JoshuaZ 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JarlaxleArtemis[edit]

I saw your comment last month about Drow and user:JarlaxleArtemis.[11] That user is currently blocked due to the requirements of his parole. A natural requirement is to avoid the tendentious behaviors that led to two ArbCom cases, such as revert warring, incivility and crude language, and ignoring formatting standards, image tag, and copyright requirements. I'm not interested in his topics, and so I'm not up on all of his activities. But a brief review of his talk page, and of articles like Lord Ao and Drow, indicates to me that he's been edit warring in D&D articles. As I mentioned, he is on parole and may be blocked from editing designated articles where he is not being constructive. Since you apparently edit many of the same articles with him, you may have some insight. Probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#JarlaxleArtemis would be a good place to give input (non-admins may post there too). Cheers, -Will Beback 07:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed[edit]

On the latest meta template. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Questions[edit]

Hi. I wonder if you have Wikipedia:Questions on your watchlist, now that Wikipedia:Where to ask a question which you maintained redirects to it. There are some arguments over there with a certain user attempting a radical redesign which some of us don't agree with. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurrock Paranormal[edit]

I noticed that you reverted a link spam to Thurrock Paranormal added by User:Pchurch who spends most of his/her time on Wikipedia promoting Thurrock Paranormal. I have added the entry about this group to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thurrock Paranormal I thought you may want to vote. Best wishes - Solar 15:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA?[edit]

I was just looking through your contribs, talk page, etc. in an effort to determine if I should nominate you for adminship. You have had a significant drop in edits - only 79 last month total! Are you still active in Wikipedia? If you are, just show up around Wikipedia a bit more and I'll nominate you in 1-2 weeks. If I don't hear a response from you on my talk page, I'll e-mail you and then assume that you are, unfortunately, not on Wikipedia anymore. But let's not dwell on such possible outcomes - be an optimist! I hope to see you around soon. --M @th wiz 20 20 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend it. This user has a tendency to participate in revert wars over the opening sentences in articles on spurious grounds. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know you have a personal problem with Ec5618 a long with your associated Arb Com issues. This is not news to anyone. JoshuaZ 04:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Planescape[edit]

Precisely what part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games should I be looking at? I do recall a bit of controversy over the precise wording of initial paragraphs (I believe Drow was the article being fought over), but it was my impression that that only applied to fictional elements within a setting. In the case of an article about a campaign setting, I would think it would look better to place the name first. We don't need the context first because it isn't about a fictional topic. It sounds very strange (to my ears, at least) to say that Planescape is "in" the Dungeons and Dragons role-playing game; it's a campaign setting for the game. Please see Forgotten Realms for an example of what I mean. Powers 15:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I reacted too harshly to what I perceived to be another attempt on the part of Jarlaxleartemis to change articles to confirm to his personal views on style. Feel free to change the wording. -- Ec5618 18:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not an unreasonable reaction, considering the history. I think he has a good case here, though. Powers 18:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wharton[edit]

Thanks...my fingers were possessed by the leter "e"., it was the letter of the day on Sesame Street. ;) OK, I just screwed up. Again, thanks. Jim62sch 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost article[edit]

Why revert the edit to the Ghost article made by 68.252.103.126? Orbs (which basicly means smaller spots of light that appear on photos and videotapes shot at supposedly haunted locations) and ectoplasm are in fact signs that those who are into the paranormal look for when hunting for ghosts. That is not to say that it's true, but since the article in itself deals with pseudo-science, it should go in the article. /Magore 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line I removed read, in full, "Common signs are orbs and exctoplasm". Surely you're not suggesting that this was in itself a clear addition to the article. For one, the word orb can mean many things. For another, there is no scientific evidence that ectoplasm exists.

Note also that the word ectoplasm was not wikilinked, and was spelled wrong, and that the sentence was missing a full stop at the end. -- Ec5618 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, orbs (previously not mentioned in the article) should be considered in the context of the article, thus meaning Orb_(paranormal), a phenomena/anomaly that believers claims to be evidence for something supernatural, while sceptics dismiss them as floating dust, moths, lens flares, etc. As for ectoplasm, it should not be left out due to missing scientific evidence or explanations. This whole article is based more or less on pseudo-science, of which very little can be proven. Anyway, reverting is primarily a way to fight vandalism and spam, and in a case like this I would consider adding wikilinks and correcting spelling errors a more suitable action. /Magore 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

FeloniousMonk does not seem interested in either formal nor informal mediation regarding the Von Bertalanffy (crediting him with an early concept of irreducible complexity) matter (I think I've waited long enough for his response) and the RfC's do not appear to have resolved the matter either. I have thus been considering arbitration. FeloniousMonk has by far been the most vociferous opponent to my charges of original research etc. regarding this disputed claim. Would you consider yourself a significant objector to this discussion? If not I won't put you on the list of involved parties (should I choose to go ahead with it).

--Wade A. Tisthammer 17:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never object to discussion. Pardon my pith. -- Ec5618 22:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Image:Kevlar2.JPG, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article. I've marked it for speedy deletion instead, under WP:CSD I1. Mango juice^talk 13:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I see it's been dealt with as such, too. Excellent. -- Ec5618 21:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid (disambiguation), aka 'Your lecture'[edit]

Er, how do you reconcile these two edit summaries of yours:

"RV anon vandal. Sure it's not neutral, that is why it's used in the first place"

(in other words, you admit the text you are supporting is not neutral)

"Either use NPOV language or have {{pov}} tag - you cannot have it both ways."

(in other words, you are complaining that the text should be neutral, or carry a warning)

The point of NPOV is to use neutral wording, without passing judgement.

And again, the point of disambiguation is to help readers find articles they may be looking for. Helping them find an article you don't approve of is simply not a valid reason to remove it. -- Ec5618 09:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you read WP:D. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to 'lecture' you, as you put it. I simply meant to ask you to clarify your position. To that end, I asked you a question, and clarified my position. For future reference, you may now assume I have, in fact, read Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

May I, in turn, again point you to Allah (disambiguation), which is as much a disambiguation page as any other page? You'll find the disambiguation guidelines are quite flexible. -- Ec5618 11:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you maintain that our readers who look for Israel would start with Apartheid (disambiguation), we have nothing to talk about, and no need for you to pretend neutrality. Meanwhile, you broke 3RR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? Pretend neutrality? My point of view, in full, is that the disambiguation page should link to related articles. Please don't assume I have any other motives here. While I oppose your stance, I have not given you any reason to assume I oppose any person, any of the worlds religions, nor any of the worlds countries. Please apologise. -- Ec5618 15:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page onlt creates disruption to wikipedia editor and confusion to readers. Zeq 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of the article on God. Regardless, the article exists. We were dealing with the content of the page, not its existance. While it exists, it should be useful. And again, linking to a term does not constitute endorsement, as you seem to suggest. Linking to Israeli apartheid does not validate the term, nor endorse it, though it does aid in navigation. -- Ec5618 23:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and putting Israeli Apaertheid (+ The Apartheid Wall) in one line with the real Apartheid is merely an encyclopedic necessity.--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 04:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why must you all see it as offensive? The term 'Israeli aparatheid' exists, and there is an artice about it. As long as that is true, it deserves to be linked to. -- Ec5618 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Font[edit]

EC, you missed the point. I'm not going to retype what I already typed and lost due to an edit conflict. Suffice it to say that you are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine. End of story. Jim62sch

Blocked[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This block is in response to Apartheid (disambiguation), and the subsequent discussion.

Please re-read WP:3RR, which allows for correction of simple vandalism and does not view them as 'edits', as such. It specifically states: "In cases of vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute, the three-revert rule does not apply." Are you making the case that this edit was not vandalous? Are you saying the edit was intended as a stepping stone to a better article?

Come on, read the edit. No-one can claim that this is an honest attempt at improvement. I'm pretty sure I don't even need to emphasise specific words, as almost each word is badly chosen, and both grammar and punctuation are lacking:

"Israeli apartheid is a a focused, targeted propaganda epithet which is at the center of a campaign for a political platform is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state".it's sole purpose is to to demonize the State of Israel"

PinchasC, I think policy is sufficiently flexible to allow for my reversion, and I find your interpretation of the rules rather constricting.

Finally, please remember that "Blocking is always preventative, not punitive." Since I clearly stated that I was aware my reversion might be seen as violating WP:3RR (and offered arguments to refute that), a simple warning might have served us all better. -- Ec5618 07:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your email. I have removed the 5th revert notice which was added by another user. However there were still 4 reverts. I have reduced the block by 24 hours to 24 hours from 48 hours since the 2cd block seemed to have been a mistake. Regarding Zeq's version, it was not vandalism and therefore you were not allowed to revert it after you had already reverted 3 times. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid (disambiguation)[edit]

Please note that this is not a neutrally worded description of the term "Israeli apartheid", nor is it grammatically correct or properly punctuated:

Israeli apartheid is a a focused, targeted propaganda epithet which is at the center of a campaign for a political platform is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid state".it's sole purpose is to to demonize the State of Israel[12]

Please read WP:POINT, if you haven't already. Thank you. -- Ec5618 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral words: Aparthide is not neutral.; Don't confuse edits that you dispute with WP:Point. Nothing there justify reverting my edit.; Aren't you under a block ?; Zeq 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid[edit]

Thanks for voting on the Israeli apartheid article. You may also be interested in the following AFDs:

fullsome prison 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking deities in D&D articles[edit]

Hi there. In many of the Outer Plane articles the names of deities are featured. To simply feature a name and state a realm is next to useless as it gives no information about exactly who this deity is, what panthenon they belong to etc, etc. So why even have them there and not wiki-link them to the deity in question? At the very least it gives indication as to who it is that is being talked about. Doesn't matter if it has anything to do with D&D or not, as the 2nd Edition Manual of the Planes provided several references to non-D&D panthenons including Egyptian, Celtic, Hindu, Shinto and many others. Its extremely relevant, especially if an article already exists which is talking about the actual deity which is being referenced by the outer plane article dont you think? Enigmatical 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin belief[edit]

Dear fellow, I wished to change origin belief's link to the french mythes et créations du monde, as I dont't like this one for several reason :

does only take the mythic point in account (i.e : every cosmogony is a myth - I disagree)
cosmogony, creation theology, etc redirect there. This is highly limitative.
only myths are discussed (no mention of the Big Bang)

I recently put a cleanup template to no avail. Shortly put, the french article lacks many of the qualities of his english counterparts.
So,would you please revert your revert. I've created "Récit des orgiines" which intends to be a translation. Whether they'll wish to merge both entries later is not my concern for now.
Yours sincerely, Inyan 12:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

major revisions complete[edit]

The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skunk Smell[edit]

How about fixing the section instead of removing it ? Renmiri 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a wholly unecyclopedic section to the Talk page, so that its content and wording could be discussed. Please don't expect me to fix a section, when you can as easily do it yourself.

If you are interested in re-writing this section, you may also want to read the WP:MOS, as this section does not conform to Wikipedia formatting. For one, Wikipedia does not use inline links to direct readers to outside information. We are expected to include all relevant information in the article, and link to sources confirming our information, for credibility. -- Ec5618 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be hard, if not impossible for me to do it. I'm the author of the one you rejected. That was my best effort... Can you give it a try since you disliked mine so much as to erase it ? Renmiri 17:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Science[edit]

Moved to Talk:Creation science -- Ec5618 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block of User:Osieer[edit]

All sorted, thanks :) — Fire Fox 10:03, 04 July '06

Thanks![edit]

for the Happy-getting-older-and-more-decrepit-wishes! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Scientific community; Green tags; Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands; Non-renewable energy; Ames Laboratory; Clockmaker hypothesis; No Answers in Genesis; No true Scotsman; Oliver Ames, Jr.; Creator deity; Sustainable industries; British Wind Energy Association; Ecoforestry; Ames, Spain; Static universe; Exploitation of natural resources; Speciation; Lighting efficiency; EvoWiki

Cleanup: Gerald Schroeder; Methuselah; Internal consistency and the Bible
Merge: History of male circumcision; Mutilation; Boat building
Add Sources: Sustainable energy; Mary Rose de Valladares; CreationWiki
Wikify: Non-renewable resources; Office for Metropolitan Architecture; Schengen Information System
Expand: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Edible salt; Prediction

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two reverts to Creampie (sexual act)[edit]

Hi dude: When two different people put the same kind of thing in, then maybe they think there is value or merit to it. In this case, the point is minor, and the subject is extremely unimportant. But, if you don't agree, then why not discuss it on the talk page? You reverted in this example, because you said not all users have a mouse. Well, that is true, but the point of the "click here" was for the users who DO have a mouse, not the ones who don't. I can live with, or without the click here being there, but I can tell you that I am not the only one that thinks that you reverting multiple times without discussion is rude. Later, thanks. Atom 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the Talk page, as my point was obvious in itself. If anything, you should have used the Talk page when you reverted my edit. You were aware thatI had sound reasoning for opposing the edit, and chose to implement it anyway, without providing a reason.

Now, if you can think of better wording, feel free to implement it. But Wikipedia should avoid using language specific to a single type of computer setup. We have readers with screen readers, for example, which means we should avoid asking our readers to click here, as per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Links.

For the record, I took it up in the one place it should be discussed. See {{Linkimage}}. -- Ec5618 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagfish band[edit]

Please explain to me how I have not quoted sources. The band Hagfish is well known in and around Texas. They have several albums on reputable record labels. You claim that the article does not fall under an accepted category? Please explain how a punk rock band is not music (an accepted category). Just because you do not know them, does not mean they are not worthy. As for the quote from Allmusic, it is not copyright infringement if it is properly noted, and credit is given, it is re-publishing. There is notable information in the list of members, albums, and current projects. I feel that this article is noteworthy, and if you do not feel so, please contact a moderator.

Actually, it is copyright infringement. You are, by posting that text here, attempting to release it under GFDL (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations). The text you are submitting is copyrighted, thus you are not allowed to 're-publish' the text. According to Wikipedia policy, I am to replace the content of the article with a boiler ({{copyvio}}), as per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I hadn't done so, as I had hoped that you were also the author of the artistdirect page, but that seems unlikely now.

Please, you created an article on a band, filled with copyrighted text. The band has no website (apart from a MySpace page), and I have been able to find little about them. Can you honestly blame me for raising questions? Feel free to write your own, non-biased description of the band (assuming you are not a member of said band), but please, do not contribute copyrighted material again. -- Ec5618 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar power[edit]

Thanks for your edits to Solar Power. I noticed that the last part of the whole article was missing after your edit - including categories, links, and all. I assume it was a mistake, but if you really wanted to delete entire sections, please do so more carefully and argue why on the talk page.Jens Nielsen 07:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must be that damn Firfox/Googlebar bug thing. I'll have to be more careful. -- Ec5618 08:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA logo[edit]

It's not the exact same image - the old one said "GNAA"; the new one says "DDH" which might be their new name. The Wikipedia article certainly shouldn't change until any official announcement is made and reported in a reliable source, but I was just clarifying, since you said in your edit summary that the images were the same. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I hadn't noticed the name change. Still, the webpage provided by Joebb11 doesn't prove anything, so we'll have to stick with the original. -- Ec5618 12:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–

A Scientific Support For Darwinism[edit]

I just came across this article, and I noticed you had tagged it. I was wondering what the major problems were, as you see it. Thanks. Guettarda 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I'd have thought that was obvious. What isn't directly copy/pasted from the press release is riddled with typos. None of it is properly formatted. I'll have a closer look. -- Ec5618 17:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. No, I didn't have a very close look at the page - I just saw the tag, but didn't see much in terms of discussion. Thanks. Guettarda 17:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ID[edit]

EC, thanks a million for archiving -- I think we were all dreading doing that! Jim62sch 10:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give reason when reverting.[edit]

Whilst viewing recently updated articles, I was going through the changelog of Anus (don't ask, long boring night) and noted a very odd act on your behalf: -

(cur) (last) 12:34, 12 July 2006 Ec5618 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 63345997 dated 2006-07-12 02:56:11 by NawlinWiki using popups) (cur) (last) 12:22, 12 July 2006 211.30.80.121 (Talk) (→Health - One image example is enough, thanks.)

I am inclined to agree that a big hairy male anus is superfluous and not to mention utterly redundant and .. in this instance rather disturbing. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that many users would find this particular image in question disturbing, thus I concur with the users removal of the image added randomly without additional supporting comment given as to why the image was added.

I have reverted the users changes, however I am curious as to why you would use a pop-up to revert without giving any reasoning as to why this revert occured? And unless you have some specific vested interest in this hairy male anus being on the page, could you put forwards another alternative? Jachin 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is often visited by editors who find images of anatomy offensive. They then remove one of more of the images, without looking at the Talk page. Explaining to each of these people that they should take a gander at the Talk page seems useless, since that should have been their first recourse. Consensus is to keep the images, as per non-censorship policy. -- Ec5618 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Topics[edit]

The organization structure of the D&D classes section is haphazard at best. To make it uniform there are only two choices... either put (Dungeons & Dragons) at the end of each topic, or take them all off... The second option isn't really an option because topics like Shaman, Cleric, Crusader, Monk, etc. already exist in Wikipedia... so I elected to move them all into one topic... If there's some sort of problem (which I don't see why there would be) with imposing uniformity then I'll have to rethink the structure...

Also, is there any reason to leave comments on talk pages that have either been addressed or are rendered meaningless by changes (or in one of the cases for which you reverted, was me deleting my own question that I figured out the answer for)... seems like unnecessary clutter

Thanks for the heads up though... --Laxrulz777 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire to create unity. And in this case, you have a definate point, as most of these topics are of interest only to people interested in Dungeons & Dragons related content. It is not policy, however. Consider that if it were to become policy to add 'Dungeons & Dragons' or 'Star Trek' to all relevant articles, an automated bot could quickly finish the job, 'pedia-wide. I again urge you to visit the Manual of Style. There are a large number of bots around, and finding one willing to help your project shouldn't be dificult, once policy reflects your views.

As for the comments on Talk pages, it is prefered to leave comments where they are, or to move them to an archive subpage. Adding a note explaining that the issue has been addressed is certainly useful, but removing comments can be confusing (as it forces interested users to check the history to see which comments were removed and why). In some way, all comments on the Talk pages are a part of the history of an article, and should be easily reviewable. -- Ec5618 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I didn't see anything in the Manual of Style specifically opining on which way was best (there's some discussion of when to use parentheticals but nothing specific). There discussions of avoiding "heirarchy" structures which this may be bordering on. I'll look more into it... Thanks for the input.

I'll be more careful with the comments. Thanks for that. --Laxrulz777 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: welcome/ DNA repair[edit]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I'll see what I can do on DNA repair pages. My first idea was to just copy-paste the introduction to my thesis there, but I doubt anybody would appreciate it :P (thirty-odd pages, 300+ scientific references). Some trimming down will be required haha. Groeten, Marvol 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution[edit]

Hi Ec5618,

I want to make you acquainted with the WP:NPOV policy. Sentence one of this policy states: 'The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.' I have the impression that we are dealing with conflicting views at the moment. The article Devolution (fallacy) is dealing with the theme started by Max Nordau. I am a socialist and don't agree with the devolution theory, still i think that the history of the thought on devolution should be included into this article.--Daanschr 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Devolution refers to a fallacy, in which biological evolution is seen as progresssion to an ultimately superior form. Degeneration, as used by Max Nordau, refers to decaying moral standards and decadence. This is not an issue of neutral poin of view, this is an issue of irrelevance. Max Nordau's views on civilisation are irrelevant when discussing biological evolution. -- Ec5618 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy these discussion to the subsequent talk page.--Daanschr 13:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we having fun yet?[edit]

You really walked into one of our high-bedlam periods on the ID, evolution and creation pages, eh? Glad to have your input because I was about to go crazy myself. ;)

So have you become "acquainted" with NPOV yet? ROFL. Jim62sch 13:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have glanced at it at some point. Meaningless drivel, I'm sure. -- Ec5618 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Jim62sch 14:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for archiving ID. Now we just need to see if the conversation rears it's ugly head again. Jim62sch 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, at one point, we will be able to resist explaining these things to people who refuse to ask real people. The archives are filled with people who seem unwilling to trust scientists. And according to polls, that includes just a few too many people for us to handle here. -- Ec5618 21:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I doubt it given that the first page many people turn to in the paper is their bloody horrorscope. Jim62sch 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I'll try to find a typo in that last word. -- Ec5618 23:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I didn't fat-finger that one. Thanks for the tip on using <cite>! Jim62sch 16:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So George speaks Spanish? (The grammar doesn't fit) Or better, manages his brain in Spanish? I'm beginning to think ID is a freak-magnet. Ugh. (BTW, thanks for moving that converstaion, it had degraded into the sublime) Jim62sch 23:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What are your thoughts on the idea of moving such discussions to a user's talk page the moment they become long? I know some might object to being brushed off, but if we could make an effort to continue the dialogue on their talk page, we could keep the main Talk page clear of this sort of endless tripe. -- Ec5618 08:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion was really becoming incoherent on Bob's part and wandering just a bit off-tiopic, I think moving it to the talk page was appropriate. We should probably consider doing that anytime a conversation/discussion resembles the one you moved. It's not really blowing the person off, it's granting them the ability to pontificate to another audience. ;) Jim62sch 22:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have to worry about what tack Bob takes next...and GeorgeFThompsom is simple friggin' insane, as in there are no ants at his picnic, his elevator is missing it's cable, two jokers do not a deck of cards make. Jim62sch 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my naiveté I always assume that people are sane. It's very distressing to discover they are not, but there is no other explanation for GeorgeFThompsom's behaviour. I can't understand such people. Why can't logic pierce their sense of self-satisfaction? How do these people justify lying to win a discussion? Still, no harm done, I guess. -- Ec5618 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm if you own stock in Tylenol. ;) I think George said he was developing a "new logic". Ought to be a pisser. Jim62sch 08:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primal Photos[edit]

I found a name-tagged nude picture of myself and would like to remove it from the site. Please do not reload it. Thanks.

Anus[edit]

I didn't add nonsense. It made complete sense. The anus clearly had small pieces of fecal matter from the center of the hole to the bottom of the gooch.

Leave my edits alone and I'll leave yours alone. Deal? Thanks.

B

Erm, that's not really how this works. You reduced the fontsize of the entire article, and added irrelevant (and disputable) text to a description of an image. Such edits deserve to be reviewed, and as such I will not leave your edits alone, no. -- Ec5618 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change the font size and I added an observation, just like the current caption reads. "Unshaven" is an observation and also could be considered irrelavent due to the fact that most males don't shave their rectums. How is what I did wrong and the caption currently there be acceptable?

Please review your edit. You did change the fontsize. As for the 'unshaven' observation, that appears to be a relic from a time when an image of a shaven female anus appeared next to it.

Again, that you appear to 'clearly' see fecal matter, doesn't mean such is obvious. In fact, I still see no such thing. That is why your observation is contentious. -- Ec5618 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't not mean to or notice that I changed the font size, but I do know that the caption makes no sense and therefore I am going to remove the "shaven" part and leave the rest. Thanks.

I've taken the liberty of doing just that. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Ec5618 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listening and for the welcome. :)

Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

Hello, I seem to have a mild problem, or at least be setting myself up for one. I've made it a personal goal of mine to expand and add as many of the DnD prestige classes as possible and feasable to wikipedia, after looking at all the red links of the relivant page. This is mainly because I find them enjoyable to write and because the prestige classes have always interested me. Today I found out that there has been some debate over adding (Dungeons & Dragons) onto the ends of article titles. I've been doing this if the article already refered to something else (like when I wrote the Shifter article. Have I done anything wrong? It seems to fit in a neater style then having some be (game class) or (character type).

Also, since the character class template is so long, I was thinking of making a seperate template for prestige classes and leaving a link to it on the bottom of the current template. I'm worried that if I ever finish adding all the prestige classes I have than it will be miles too long. Sorry if this should be directed at somebody else, but I've had trouble finding anyone else interested in the prestige classes and don't want to have to deal with an angry mob at some point in the future; it also seemed common courtisy to run the idea past the author of the current class template. Morgrim 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The base class template has the potential of becoming quite long by itself, so removing the Prestige Classes seems like a good idea. We have a list of Prestige Classes in the List of Prestige Classes article, so I don't think we really need a template to list them. Still, a lot of those Prestige Classes don't have articles, so it's a good thing that you're creating such articles.

As for the naming, recently a number of Dungeons & Dragons related articles have been renamed to include the words Dungeons & Dragons in parentheses, but there is no rule governing this. The Manual of Style suggests that article titles should only contain parentheses to disambiguate, but there's nothing wrong with adding them. So, either way of naming the articles is technically fine. Personally, I prefer the simpler name, without the parentheses. -- Ec5618 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got bored with article writing and clean-up tonight and decided to try my hand at template writing. Any oppinions? I'm not sure I'm game enough to ever put it anywhere other than my user page, but I suppose at the very least I can use it to keep myself organised. I just think that the List of Prestige Classes is perhaps a bit long and redlinked-ish for most people.Morgrim 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nice, though I still feel that there really isn't a need for this type of template. I've edited it to include noinclude tags, so that it can be used in articles. (Mainly so we can easily see what it would look like in an article. All text between the noinclude tags is effectively hidden when the template is used elsewhere.)

As for being bored, I'm not surprised. Can you imagine ever creating anything like a comprehensive set of articles on this subject? The encyclopedic value of such articles may also be debated. Perhaps you should focus on Dungeon Master's Guide prestige classes, and perhaps classes from the main additional sourcebooks. Still, keep it up. -- Ec5618 16:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem is that I don't find most of the unwritten classes in the Dungeon Master's Guide very interesting, and the Masters of the Wild is the only other source book I own (as opposed to reading one at a friend's house). I just hate seeing a long page full of red links. Besides, the being bored was bored of typo and format cruising, not article writing. I'll get there...eventually. Thanks for the advice. Morgrim 08:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power as a renewable energy source[edit]

Have you been following Talk:Renewable energy? I don't have time to keep up this fight against the people who want to remove all mention of it from the article. See my post on the Village pump. — Omegatron 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy portal[edit]

Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your name[edit]

I'm curious where your name, ec5618, came from. Thanks! Taborgate 07:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation-science peer review[edit]

Ec, I appreciated your edit summary stating that "peer review' does not consist of asking any scientist whether he agrees with you." That was indeed one of the things I found most offensive about the peer-review aspects of the teach the controversy issue in the sphere of ID, and the "petition" or "statement" they circulated. ... Kenosis 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What excludes The Creation Research Society publication from being what they say it is (peer reviewed research)? Dan Watts 21:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Watts, you are arguing semantics. I hope you already know that a system of socalled peer review that completely violates the basic principles of peer review while superficially adhering to a dictionary definition completely invalidates any scientific value of the 'peer review'. True Scotsman fallacy aside, CRS Quarterly does not do peer review in the traditionally accepted scientific sense. Peer review is a well established practice, which serves to get authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. The peer reviewer is selected by a publication, ideally to be an impartial but qualified judge of the scientific validity of the work. Generally, if an article would have failed peer review by any reviewer ouside of a small group of philosophically aligned people, the article should not be considered as having been peer reviewed. For example, any article that states in its summary that "Only a designing creator can create the visual systems capable of seeing and interpreting the information contained in the light that He created."[13] has not been properly peer reviewed.

As an aside, the aforementioned article seems to do little more than suggest that scrambling the pixels in an image somehow removes most of the information from an image (hardly a brilliant deduction), concluding from this that, since the neural connections between the optical receptors in the eye and the brain are not jumbled, the eye must have been created. "Today’s scientific research on visual systems shows that we are fearfully and wonderfully made." Hardly the kind of article that would successfully pass peer review by a publication such as Science.

I also came across this little gem in one other so peer reviewed article, proudly displayed on the website as a selected article: "It is unnecessary and unreasonable to resort to unknown and unlikely processes, such as mutations, as the sources of variation that could change simple cells into all we see alive today."[14] I'm sure I don't have to point out that mutation is in fact very likely.

Another quote, to illustrate the mindset of these scientists, and to hopefully make it clear that the motives of these scientists are at least suspect: "Although there are variations in both the evolutionist and the creationist camps, the controversy can be simplified to state that either evolution is true or creation is true. To eliminate one is to confirm the other." -- Ec5618 03:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, mutation is a likely occurence. It is debatable that mutation can fuel the microbe-to-man construct. Dan Watts 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it is odd that the article states that mutation is an "unknown and unlikely" process.

It appears that the use of "unknown and unlikely" is in regard to the putative grand scope of evolution.

As for the comment you included in your edit summary, but not in your post here ("So 'any reviewer' can prove the failure? Sounds like an appeal to the masses."), I hope you are not honestly suggesting that the examples I gave were the exception, and that most such commentary is removed after 'peer review'. Scientific research does not, and will not ever show "that we are fearfully and wonderfully made", and any publication willing to print that it does is not committed to honest science. I would hope we can agree that CRS Quarterly is very much motivated by religious doctrine, and that it is willing to publish almost anything that speaks of the glory of god in seemingly scientific terms. In fact, I would make that my main argument, and ask you whether we can, in fact, agree. -- Ec5618 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean this institutions is not committed to honest science. [15] It must make life simpler to have such a litmus test. Dan Watts 13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, there's an obvious difference between an article about the fact of religion and an article that assumed there must be a god. Is this the defense of CRS you can muster? -- Ec5618 16:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't choose the quote. The plain meaning of the author's words affirms it.

How can you state with certainty "Scientific research does not, and will not ever show "'that we are fearfully and wonderfully made?'" Do you:

have a "No True Scientist" definition which would preclude such conclusion?
have unassailable knowledge of the total scope (past, present and future) of scientific research?
make a wild guess?

I assume your unflattering "seemingly scientific" follows from one of the above reasons. If not, please educate me. As Wikipedia states

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study.

^[1] Dan Watts 02:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right in suggesting that I am not the ultimate authority on truth, and it bears pointing out, I'm sure. But I fail to see the point of arguing that CRS Quarterly is a valid scientific journal. Even if the evidence, in this case a brief look at neural connections and an oversimplified calculation, were to show that humanity was undoubtedly created, it would in no way validate the statement that we were "fearfully" made. As for your list, I am not trying to insult your intelligence. Please don't insult mine. You could have removed all but one of the supposed options on your list, and I had attempted to address that point already. No true Scotsman. I am tired of this game.

Nevertheless, around and around we go. If I define a book to be a collection of sheets of paper, bound together in some form, someone can easily construct an object that matches that definition while clearly not being a book. The same could be said of any definition. Once you define something, it becomes easy to emulate. Intelligent design is attempting to do just that by emulating science. By offering doctoral titles to somehow prove to non-scientifically trained people that their points are valid but unjustly ignored. By using websites to advertise directly to the public, rather than to the scientific community. By proudly boasting about the one article that was accepted for publication, ignoring that it was retracted or even suggesting that a conspiracy of unyielding scientists is keeping the information from gaining acceptance.

Intelligent design is a wolf in poorly made sheeps clothing, but very few people know enough about sheep (or wolves) to spot the difference. And its proponents are directly fueling this ignorance, rather than spending time doing actual research.

Your move. What's your point? -- Ec5618 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is CRSQ. They publish original research and it is peer-reviewed. You do not agree with the philosophical basis of the investigations and quibble about the specific methods used (or not used), membership qualifications, and using the Bible as a reference. That does not change any of the facts that I stated. Dan Watts 11:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not peer-reviewed, as we explained above. That is not a quible, it is a vital distinction. That you do not acknowedge that doesn't change the fact that peer-review is not what you think it is. -- Ec5618 11:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You gave an example: "[A]ny article that states in its summary that "Only a designing creator can create the visual systems capable of seeing and interpreting the information contained in the light that He created."[16] has not been properly peer reviewed." This is your pass/fail criterion of peer-review? It cannot allow proper attribution to God the Creator? This is a philosophical distinction. Is that the overriding facet of peer-review? If CRSQ published a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis would that lessen the proof? Dan Watts 12:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't lessen the proof, as it would mean nothing. Only when the proof would be printed in scientific literature would it have been relevant to scientific discourse. And no, CRSQ is not scientific literature.

I'm amazed at your ability to ignore everything above, as though it contains no relevant points. I am quite uninterested in repeating what peer review actually means, so I'll ask you once again to read the above. Again, it isn't peer review when you define 'peer' as 'some guy who is likely to agree with my conclusions on philosophical grounds'. It isn't peer review when any other scientist would dismiss your conclusions as indefensible, scientifically. Grammatically, a peer is many things. In the context of peer review, it isn't. It is very specific. -- Ec5618 13:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid-decay theory[edit]

You placed a clean-up tag on this article. Please explain on the talk page what needs cleaning. I am removing the tag because it seems perfectly balanced to me - it describes the theory and then gives a rubbuttal reference. BlueValour 03:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance? I added a cleanup tag. Perhaps the cleanup tag isn't sufficient, but it is certainly valid.

The 'theory' is poorly described in any case. "It is based on the assumption that God created Earth out of water, with all of the molecules' spins aligned creating a substantial magnetic field." So, the Earth is water? And why am is it not explained that the point of this 'theory' is to explain the gradual decrease of the Earth's magnetic field, not the presence of that field? -- Ec5618 03:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further rebuttal text that might meet your concerns. BlueValour 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O my. I'm sorry, but that's hardly an inprovement. A factual statement about the age of the Earth, in an article about an alternate 'theory' just won't do. -- Ec5618 03:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please fix it - there is nothing on the takh page that outlines your concerns. BlueValour 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I only added a cleanup tag. I am not in any way an authority on this subject. What I do know is that the current article is incomplete (which is acceptable) and comfusing (which is not). Finally, please re-read my last point in the previous post. -- Ec5618 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies, it's getting late here in the UK so I didn't read your comment carefully enough. Please see what I Have done and check that it meets your concerns. BlueValour 04:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage for men and women only?[edit]

The short answer to your question on the talk page is that it says that because we got another vandal. I think it's an American thing - didn't Bush try to get that put into the American constitution? - and, well, it seems he has some support. If you see it again, please feel free to revert it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it has nothing to do with Bush (and if you're associating me with that, i'll point out in advance that i was a volunteer for the Howard Dean campaign and even introduced the governor to a town hall meeting during the New Hampshire primary in 2004), it has nothing to do with "an American thing", it has to do with the definition of marriage as shown in Webster and the OED and what 90% or 95% of the world's population understand what marriage commonly is. WP gets to reflect reality as it is, not what any one POV wishes reality to be.

don't take me for a vandal, i am here to clean up POV, even politically correct POV. r b-j 19:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this somewhere else. Webster or no, this page is not the place to define marriage. -- Ec5618 03:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design[edit]

On the article Intelligent design, I noticed you reverted some changes made by a new user without discussion. Granted, the changes were stupid, but we're talking about a newbie, and newbies are generally stupid, and occasionally add weird commentary to articles. Per WP:BITE, if it's at all questionable, it's advised not to revert without giving an explanation in the edit summary, or leaving a message on the users talk page, unless it's straight-out blatant vandalism (see WP:REVERT). Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palikar Publications[edit]

Defunct magazine, lapsed copyright. Do you have reason to beleive that is has not lapsed? Are you the Mr. Publications of Palikar Publications? If that article isn't public domain I'll eat my shoe! The Copyright office doesn't even have a record for Palikar, much less this article. It's a forgotten relic. A forgotten, public domain relic. Now that you've gotten my article in trouble, maybe you'd like to get it out of trouble.

Reverting without discussion or reasoning[edit]

Ec5618. You reverted my edit without any form of reasoning or discussion. Whats the matter? Can't you be bothered? Liontherock 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. It happens often that a new account is used to make a single odd edit, and then goes silent. Bothering to explain why every such edit is odd, especially when the edit was hardly discussed or explained, is not something I enjoy spending time on.

Now, the reason I reverted your edit is that it suggests that only the example of the iriducible complexity of flagella has been disproven, when in fact, all such examples have been shown to be wrong. Evolutionary pathways that lead to the formation of the eye, the blood clotting mechanism, and such, have all been proposed. But this article is not the place to into such details. Intelligent design proponents claim these things are irriducibly complex. The article on irreducible complexity shows why they are not, and in fact, the evolution of the eye has its own article, as does the evolution of flagella. -- Ec5618 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance is the point here. Intelligent design arguments hinge upon those very colourful images of magical god given flagellae. The parts operate on their own though according to research. In the ID article, there should be an image or a description of how the parts can operate or can be evolved on their own. Its a crucial example. Liontherock 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you bring this up on the Talk page of the article I'm sure someone will either agree with you and make your point clear in the article, or explain to you why it isn't necessary. In any case, the article on irreducible complexity deals with irriducible complexity. The article on design, at this point, lists irreducible complexity merely as an example of arguments used by intelligent design proponents. -- Ec5618 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I'll discuss more next time. Liontherock 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, about Behe..[edit]

Thought I'd bring up your point on your talk page, seeing that we have both made a couple of reverts already. No need to venture into the dangerous territory of three reverts... I skimmed down through the article, he didn't admit to no longer believing in the theory but that he admitted to some flaws in it. No real problem I see with that, all theories tend to have problems with it over time but then hopefully they get fixed up. But he certainly doesn't seem to think he has been discredited. So to say that it is pushing a POV onto the readers, best to let them form their own opinion. Mathmo ^Talk 13:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [17]:

"Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection.". Professor Behe specifically explained that "[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an alreadyfunctioning system," but "[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place." Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work"

The point that Behe still believes in Intelligent design is irrelevant, as the point is that he can no longer use this argument. He 'introduced' an argument against evolution, claimed that it was an argument in favour of design, and has since admitted that the argument is moot. He still holds hope that other arguments exist, and he hopes to formulate an argument that would convince people that evolution would be incapable to 'bringing components together'. But that is all. Irreducible complexity is dead. Long live the king. -- Ec5618 13:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. wasn't referring to ID before but irreducible complexity, would have thought he still believes in irreducible complexity (d'oh, of course he still believes in ID! No surprises there really... ). Not fully convinced that it is his viewpoint from the quote from the quote from the court case you brought up, though you have sparked a bit of curiosity in me. Something I'll have to check up later if he believes that or not right now (though not now, very late over here...). Anyway... this is all besides the point of the main reason I posted to your page, to avoid us breaking WP:3RR. Which I see you have now done anyway... oh well, I did try. Please see this page WP:3RR#I.27ve_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F Mathmo ^Talk 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit this discussion to the Talk page of the article. For the record, 3RR has not been broken. Now, let's just be cautious, so that we never do. -- Ec5618 14:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I was being cautious which is why I posted to your user talk page rather than the article talk page initially in the hope of not having either of us break WP:3RR. Though it seems I failed at that, didn't you notice the new message? Because count your reverts, you can't possibly claim WP:3RR wasn't broken. Mathmo ^Talk 14:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit this discussion to the Talk page of the article. For the record, 3RR has not been broken. Feel free to re-read the policy. -- Ec5618 14:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, my deepest apologies regarding WP:3RR. Has a strange name... would have thought the 3 to be more relevant, otherwise I'd be calling WP:4RR. Never mind, I see your point now. An indication I'm lacking enough sleep I ought to get some? Isn't that far off from daylight... Mathmo ^Talk 14:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's a commonly held misconception. Still, let's now focus on presenting arguments. And please, let's do so on the appropriate Talk page. -- Ec5618 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, for sure. Just thought my previous comment was more relevant for user page than on the talk page of the article. Though doesn't matter now, because all that is left to discuss should be mentioned on the article page anyway. So... see you there! Mathmo ^Talk 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism[edit]

Take a look at Creationism and the venting in the reasons for edits.--Filll 21:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

Please stop leaving odd comments in the evolution article. -- Ec5618 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not leaving odd comments in the evolution article. I having posting a single thing to the evolution article.

I am attempting to submit facts into the discussion section of evolution, but most of my edits get deleted or moved by a small band of Admins who are evidently determined to keep the article biased and unscientific.Ymous 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology[edit]

I could be wrong but I think someone is pulling your leg (and getting a kick out of it). I'm convinced he has been pulling all our legs, or trying, since day one. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Anyhow, good to have you around the ID article. Mr Christopher 02:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Raspor#Educating raspor. ..... dave souza, talk 10:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to think he is not serious. I tried. I give up.--Filll 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you guys keep feeding this troll? Everyone has tried to be civil, if not nice, but his personality is to pick up the slightest offense, and claim that he's been offended. His persecution complex is getting to be truly annoying. He whines that no one accepts his ideas, and if you try to engage him in conversation, he proceeds to claim that he's been ridiculed, offended or demeaned in some mysterious manner. His tactics have passed from amusing to almost pathological. You know, he actually does have a couple of interesting points, but it's so clouded in his odd rhetoric, that I have no patience with him. I just ignore him. Maybe we should not answer him, because we're not getting anywhere with him. Orangemarlin 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get raspor to agree that he is not helping matters by continuing to seek conflict. Perhaps in vain, but in the worst case scenario I get some flak from raspor while keeping the main talk page clean. In the best case scenario, raspor agrees and helps the project.

If raspor is a troll, he should be banned. I am not sure why he hasn't yet been. -- Ec5618 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was given a timeout. I don't think he used it to gain proper perspective. I wish there were an ignore button on Wikipedia!!!!Orangemarlin 05:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Talk:Irreducible complexity[edit]

Good evening, Ec5618. I've been following the thread both on Talk and through the edit summaries. I think it's time to stop feeding the troll. This is clearly an experienced user hiding behind the anonymous IP. He/she is attempting to wiki-lawyer our precedents in order to push his/her own point of view. I have lost my ability to assume the good faith of this particular user. I regret that I wasted my breath on the Talk page earlier today. I recommend that we stop responding to the troll. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to disengage[edit]

I have requested that Raspor stop engaging in debates over Intelligent Design as they violate WP:NOT and do not help with the larger goal of encyclopedia-building. I would like to ask you to likewise disengage. If he is looking for a debate on ID, evolution, and creation science, he can find a web forum offwiki. If you have any questions, please let me know either via my talk page or e-mail. (Just ignore that big ol' Wikibreak banner--I clearly am.) -- Merope 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (wikibarnstarishly)[edit]

Thanks for popping in again on the Marriage discussion! I would award you one of those barnstar thingys for doing so, if only they weren't so silly-looking. By the way, reading your talk page is a delightful treat! Sdsds 05:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy portal & future selected articles[edit]

Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.

The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome!

Please make any comments on your Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 15:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help improve Plug-in hybrid[edit]

You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Energy development, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed[edit]

i removed the image because it was disgusting, blanked the page because commenting on my page for the removal was unneccesary. You want attention, you got it. Don't be a child about it. We are on the internet. I will surely sign this.BaRiMzI 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design FAR[edit]

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sermon is not a study...[edit]

No, but it is a result of a study. A preacher with study a subject/passage carefully with reference to other materials e.g. commentaries. Because of this, sermons can be helpful in getting to understand a particular issue. An audio sermon is sometimes nicer than text as you can be doing other things whilst listening to it. I feel your revert in this instance was not necessary. I will await your reply here before further action. Thanks, 193.132.159.170 13:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia should use reliable sources. I fail to see how a sermon, which describes the personal musings of a preacher based on his reading of a text, qualifies as such.

I also fail to see what good linking to a random sermon will do. -- Ec5618 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't even reviewed the webpage for yourself but just read the word sermon, and disregarded the edit. This is not good practice. The page doesn't contain a random sermon, it contains a list of reliable sermons. The preacher who preached them is well known and reliable. He also writes articles for a newspaper of which I could provide links. Sermons are more than just "musings of a preacher" and by saying that you prove your lack of understanding of a sermon. Since this proves to be the case, I shall ask somebody else, who is well established on wikipedia for their own advice on the matter. 193.132.159.169 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert of the marriage article[edit]

Hi Ec I'm a little confused by your revert on my edits in the marriage article. I made 3 changes, each of which were mentions of the legal status of marriage. For each change, i specified that this was referring to US laws, rather than the existing implication that, for example, 'civil marriage' was a universal legal concept. Could you please explain how you think I should have reworded the original so that legal concepts are specifically labelled as from the US? The article already states that only some jurisdictions are involved (in the first of the three edits i made). thanks WotherspoonSmith 12:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, you changed the text to incorrectly read that "Beginning in 2001, civil marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage in some US jurisdictions." This is false. In 2001, civil marriage was expanded to include same-sex marriage specifically in the Netherlands. It wasn't until 2004 that Massachusetts did the same.

The same is true for each of the changes you made. Civil marriage is a legal concept of marriage in several justifucations, not just the US. -- Ec5618 15:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Question?[edit]

So you believe in evolution? ElisaEXPLOSiON ~~talk.~~ —Preceding comment was added at 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who you are. I do know that you dismiss an important field of science. You believe that the vast majority of scientists active in the biological sciences are inept or lying. I really don't see why I should bother talking to someone who refuses to be rational. But to answer your question: no, I don't believe in evolution. -- Ec5618 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Scientific Method

[1] Scientific Method

[1]