User talk:Ecostaz

Welcome!

Hello, Ecostaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! From: (→Netscott) 16:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your question about: Race and intelligence (Research)[edit]

I noticed that this article is inappropriate. What to do?

Here is what you can do.

Start by telling us what's wrong with it, by posting your concerns here on the "talk page."
Suggest sources to improve it.
Just start editing it yourself, but remember you need to cite sources for things you add, and avoiding removing anything that has a source (look for the <ref></ref> tags, these are sources.)
Be bold and help us improve it.

I agree with you, it needs a lot of work! futurebird 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, welcome! If you have any questions drop by my talk page.

Response to commments on the Michael Richards page that have nothing to do with the article[edit]

Please stop your attacks and name calling (dynamic duo and others) on other editors, it makes your much quoted assume good faith toward you a lot harder if not impossible. According to your public contributions you were blocked two times yet you continue your attacks and disruption. You should stop before admins notice your behaviour and block you again. Ecostaz 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't attacked anybody personally, though I did rightfully call your past edits into question. "Dynamic" is a positive descriptor, a~~nd both members of the duo seem pleased with their new moniker~~. I was blocked by mistake[1][2] twice, and it had nothing to do with personal attacks. The blocks lasted a few seconds each before the admins corrected their errors. I'm proud of my edits, and you are most welcome to ask any admin to review them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that you made some attacks, but I consider this matter closed if you refrain from them in the future. I'd love to see you react more to arguments like the last post of Cleo about you changeing the lead 1200 edits in (I did not check those facts, just saying as an example). I tend to agree however that there is no obligation to bring back the old version and we could simply agree on a consensus similarly to how the LF incident was treated. Ecostaz 21:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to my edits as "plug"[edit]

Greetings, I don't appreciate you referring to my edits in that way. Richards' caricaturization on that show has been very notable given the amount of press that the show has generated. Perhaps we should start a new section for this type of material. (→Netscott) 21:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know those were your edits as I did not check. I agree that the episode is notable and I see it already has it's own article. My only problem was with the section as noted in my edit summary. I could even support inclusion if the section title is "Trivia" or "In popular culture", but as part of the main biography it's highly inappropriate. Ecostaz 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Edwards' wife's cancer[edit]

I see your edit about the bad prognosis. I see your point and I also see the point raised by Jersyko/Tvoz (and agree to some extent in some ways). I am very open for discussion. However, Jersyk/Tvoz have attacked me so much that I find it hard to come to their defense and talk about the merits of their editing stance. Look what they have done to me. [3] They have filed a complaint asking that I be sanctioned by wikipedia, really just for my NPOV beliefs and because they have, what I think, are POV editing.Dereks1x 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]