User talk:Duncharris/archive8: Difference between revisions

Hi there Dunc. I know you're an admin, but I'm concerned at your method of enforcing edit count rules on the VfD for Tom G. Palmer. The WP:VfD page does not say there is an edit count limit and it is frequently pointed out that there is not. Votes should not be invalidated on that basis until an admin comes to close the VfD. I'm also concerned at your comment on Nskinsella's talk page which basically says "we don't want you here". That account was made in April so isn't a sockpuppet, presumably, though does appear to be acting in a reverse meat-puppet fashion. That doesn't really justify quite such a venomous comment on their talk page, though. I was especially taken aback by the "let the regulars do it" bit — that's just not how a Wiki works! I don't want socks/meats around any more than you, but inventing edit count rules and leaving unpleasant messages doesn't seem like the best way to do things. Also, although I am president of a technology firm in Florida, editor for a regional news web site, and deeply involved in Florida politics. My areas of expetise are Tampa Bay Area history, computers and networking, and Florida politics. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2005. is red and low on edits, they have another, entirely unrelated, article TampaBayStart.com on Vfd and so are unlikely to be either a meat or a sock. Their talk page currently say that they are trying to work this whole thing out: scaring them off isn't the thing to do. So, I've moved those two votes back into the thick of things, adn the closing admin can do the deed. The others are pretty blatant, however. -Splash 01:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Wilfred Stamp, 2nd Baron Stamp, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

VfD: Consistency

You voted to Keep Tom G. Palmer. Perhaps you should visit Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2 (and Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2) and consider how you should vote on this page, applying your standards used for the Palmer vote. Nskinsella 01:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pester me. Dunc|☺ 09:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British and Irish Lions

It is certainly not my intention to be destructive and I absolutely reject your accusation that I have been. Each change that I have made to this page has been carefully considered and is in the spirit of Wikipedia. I am a Sports Journalist, a member of the Sports Journalists Association and a reporter on Rugby. As such I would defend any and all of the improvements that I have made to the page. You perhaps know little about this subject – I do, and I am prepared to defend my corner.

Vagoo up for deletion

Hi Duncharris, thank you for your email.

Since you decided to discount all of the keep messages, I would like to ask why you discounted mine as well, since I am not a newcomer and have been coming to Wikipedia for almost a year. I recently setup my account, but I have been making suggestions for updating information on webcomics, and other comic books for some time now as an annonymous.

Since you moved my vote to the 'discounted' section, I would appreciate it if you moved it back. Furthermore, the consistant use of sockpuppet by the community on newcomers is very distressing, as it goes against Wikipedia's policy on the treatment of newcomers. If this article is indeed deleted, I have every intention of petitioning for undeletion, and will be making a complaint about the lashing out by the community to newcomers who simply want to give this article a chance to grow.

Thanks for your time, and again thanks for the email.

--Arcidius 12:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dunc, if the article is deleted, then it's a shame, but that's fine. My main problem is what I'm seeing as an attack on newcomers (sockpuppets). And the fact that my vote was discounted by you. Also, I was not the author of this article, I've just edited some mistakes on it. If I was the author, I would not have voted as I agree with your stance that the author should not vote on his own article.

I do have a question that hopefully you could answer, as I'm not quite sure how to go about it. If the article is deleted, I would like to have the just of it moved over to Wiktionary. If I do this after the eventual deletion does it get chased after by the deleters? Or should I put a request in on the vote page?

ie. "Wiktionary" is a shorthand for "Keep and submit to the transwiki scheme for moving to Wiktionary" --Arcidius 13:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 2

I don't really understand why you deleted the new version of the Stephan Kinsella article. Apparently, Willmcw had restored the edit history, but the version that was up for deletion was (supposedly) new. I don't see why it was speedied. Could you explain in more detail on the VfD page? - Nat Kraus e 13:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But, if the article in question was a new text at the same title, shouldn't it have a separate VfD? - Nat Kraus e 13:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am quite surprised by what you did. This looks like an abuse of your powers as administrator. On which grounds do you think "[ Nskinsella ] recreated it to illustrate a point, thus disrupting Wikipedia." It seems to me that Nskinsella acted in good faith and write a better article. It deserves proper consideration. If you can, please revert the undeletion. --Edcolins 13:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The voting and consideration process was going on and you cut it short by just deleting my piece. This seems unfair and an abuse to me. At the very least, I would appreciate it if someone could send me the most recent version of my now-deleted entry so I can put it on my user page, in case the deletion is upheld. Or please restore it somehow temporarily at least, somewhere, where I can see the last version which someoen else had added content to. Please email me the version at nskinsella -at- gmail.com or let me know in a comment here or on my user page User:Nskinsella where I can find the last version of my entry. I would greatly appreciate this. As well as a reconsideration by Duncharris of whether his speedy delete is fair. I was indeed acting in good faith and had improved the article, and another user had also edited it, so it was being improved, and the votes were not yet concluded. --Nskinsella 13:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duncharris: I have just posted a reply to you here: User_talk:Nskinsella#Your_vanity_page. As I noted there, if you could explain to me why my page is being deleted even though I apparently clearly meet the criteria, I would appreciate it. if you have any suggestions as to improvement of my Wikiquette, I would be open to hearing it. --Nskinsella 14:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet drawer

Have you noticed how many sockpuppets are politely jumping right into the box you created for them at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vagoo? What nice manners they have. :-) Joyous (talk) 16:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

what is to be cleaned in the CG_tools page?

Thanks for giving some hints about why you tagged the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CG_tools as "to be cleaned" (with the comment "this is horrible") since the pages "How to Edit" and "Style and How-to" do not help me to guess what you did not like.

My assumption is that you did not like the tables but it is the whole point of this page that it is mostly composed of tables (and this kind of tables) in order to permit tool comparison.

Regards,

Philippe

Stockport cricket club

Undeletion policy reads in part:

If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it.

Therefore, you should know that Stockport cricket club has been speedy undeleted due to your deletion of it out of process. Since the VfD result was no consensus, it was inappropriate for the article to be deleted. Also, from the Deletion guidelines for administrators, #3 says "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it."

Please do not delete pages that you have nominated in VfD. Especially those that failed to gain consensus to delete. -- Jonel | Speak 12:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Welcome!

Hi Duncharris! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Dunc|☺ 14:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln

Why did you move Lincoln, Lincolnshire back to Lincoln? Per the consensus at Talk:Lincoln/Vote, it was decided that Lincoln should be a disambiguation page. I undid the move. Rhobite 18:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oh I didn't see that. Lincoln should be about the city in Lincolnshire though. Shame you noticed really. Dunc|☺ 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How petty. Per your logic, it's good that you didn't notice the poll. Please leave the page where it is. Rhobite 19:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, my wikistress levels are too high already. Of course I shall respect consensus and not move it, unless at some point in a few years I forget about the said consensus and move it again... ;) Dunc|☺ 19:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to: admin

Dear Admin,

I looked all over and could not see how to change my username. I know you don't know how to do it either.

I will creat a new acount and feel free to delete the old one. Also, if you just want to let it die a natural death that is fine. I have no plan on using that account except to read further messages from you and it will eventually die off I am sure.

Second, I wrote some additional comments in the discussion page. If you could be so kind to read them it would be appreciated.

Third, how does the consensus work? Majority rules? How do you know if there is a majority? I am very unclear about this.

Fourth, if someone changes my work and I change it back is that forbidden? In short, how do I know the consensus has ruled. I am guessing by the discussion page.

Fifth, is the discussion page for debating. does a person have to justify their complaint. I ask becuase it seem the "bias" complaint wasn't justified. It seems the user was claiming irrelevancy but he never claimed why it was irrelevant (please see my additional comments in the discussion page).

to: admin

Dear Admin,

I looked all over and could not see how to change my username. I know you don't know how to do it either.

I will creat a new acount and feel free to delete the old one. Also, if you just want to let it die a natural death that is fine. I have no plan on using that account except to read further messages from you and it will eventually die off I am sure.

Second, I wrote some additional comments in the discussion page. If you could be so kind to read them it would be appreciated.

Third, how does the consensus work? Majority rules? How do you know if there is a majority? I am very unclear about this.

Fourth, if someone changes my work and I change it back is that forbidden? In short, how do I know the consensus has ruled. I am guessing by the discussion page.

Fifth, is the discussion page for debating. does a person have to justify their complaint. I ask becuase it seem the "bias" complaint wasn't justified. It seems the user was claiming irrelevancy but he never claimed why it was irrelevant (please see my additional comments in the discussion page).

to admin

Dear Admin,

I looked all over and could not see how to change my username. I know you don't know how to do it either.

I will creat a new acount and feel free to delete the old one. Also, if you just want to let it die a natural death that is fine. I have no plan on using that account except to read further messages from you and it will eventually die off I am sure.

Second, I wrote some additional comments in the "Darwin's illness" discussion page. If you could be so kind to read them it would be appreciated.

Third, how does the consensus work? Majority rules? How do you know if there is a majority? I am very unclear about this.

Fourth, if someone changes my work and I change it back is that forbidden? In short, how do I know the consensus has ruled. I am guessing by the discussion page but again how do I know there is consensus?

Fifth, is the discussion page for debating. Does a person have to justify their complaint. I ask becuase it seem the "bias" complaint wasn't justified. It seems the user was claiming irrelevancy but he never claimed why it was irrelevant (please see my additional comments in the aforementioned discussion page).

to: admin

TO: Admin

A few things:

1. I figured out how to change my username. I put in a request.

2. You said if something is controversial discuss it on talk first. What is talk?

3. I looked at your material for "young earth creationism". A huge section is titled "Arguments against creationism" yet there is no place for arguments for it. This seems to go againt your NPOV rule. I also do not see writers attempt to take the other side like I did in the various aspects of my "Darwin's illness" piece. Has anyone complained about this and put it to a vote? If they did, what happened?

to: duncadmin

TO: Dunc, admin

I thank you for your help while I am a novice in regards to policies and procedures. I think we should agree to disagree on the YEC issue. I did review the YEC page and it appears to be more neutral than I had originally thought. I think we both agree neutrality is important if Wikipedia is to be seen as a good source of information.

Speedy Delete of VfD Entries

Hello Duncharris!

I have noticed that you speedy deleted some articles that were in VfD like Frank Tyger and Centerfuse but did not close the discussion in the VfD Log. It seems to be common practice to warn the voters that the articles were speedied, which saves us some time in examining them and trying to figure out what happened.

Thanks!

Poli (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

to: duncadmin

to duncadmin

I do log in. I sign in. Perhaps a firewall prevents it from being registered by wikipedia. Perhaps I am not doing a extra procedure. Nonetheless I have been identifying my post as kdbuffalo.

Lastly, is it a rule you must log in. If memory serves, one wikipedia member says it is not required.

to: duncadmin

TO: duncadmin

I went to the tech assistance page an unfortunately I am not technically proficient enough to resolve the log in matter. I am also going to continue to follow the policies about being neutral in my post.

Langer

Hi, I've re-opened this vfd because it was speedied for an improper reason. There has never been a vfd result to delete this article. Instead there was a transwiki vote. Since the article patently isn't deletion material by any stretch of the imagination, I think it's as well to give it due process. We can put it to bed after a five-day lag time. Speedying it on the day of nomination is just silly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kdbuffalo

I'd keep a close eye on him. I have been lately as well. -- BRIAN0918 21:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush

While I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment, I'm not sure it will be counted as a "vote" - perhaps you could clarify your position as to the VfD? -- BDAbramson ^talk 01:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's MY site!!

Just an FYI, http://www.billybishop.net is MY site.Al Lowe

Thanks for putting my article back. And thanks for the editing you did.Al Lowe

Glacier proposal

As you may have noticed, there has been a recent disagreement over how articles are translated for Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week. I have proposed a solution here. I would appreciate your input, so we can create a solution. — J3ff 02:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You´re awfully clever

But maybe you forgot to read WP:POINT.

Benwing 04:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm clever, but what on earth are you talking about? Dunc|☺ 11:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your renaming of my "Standardize ..." article to "Standardise ..." and snarky comments about "or should that be 'propoze'"? Benwing 03:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Community Grid

Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.'

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, Mark83 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Significant objections have been raised to this. Mark83 10:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with ROSETTA and "folding at home" because I'm a bioinformatician but unfortunately I do not have an Internet connection at home so I cannot run any of your software, although I will try to remember to do so when I do get an Internet connection. Dunc|☺ 13:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to clairfy it isn't "my software". I just chose to download and run it myself from the website, that's the height of my involvement in the project.Mark83 18:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Badusername

I think this is equivalent to Template:Usernameblock, so I'm going to redirect. FreplySpang (talk) 20:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

aargh. I knew it was somewhere! Dunc|☺ 20:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [1] --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 10:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of evolution

In fact, evidence of evolution (or evidence for evolution? I'm not sure) appears in most introductory books about evolution. In the main article of evolution, only a little evidence was raised. I think a more comprehensive picture is desirably needed in this point. It's not history — just approaches to show the existance of evolutionary processes in different scientific aspects. Btw, the horse evolution, as you've mentioned, is a typical palaeontological example for evolution; the section is already a trimmed-down version, and it seems ok by me. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TelAvivKid (ProudWHITEIsraeli

Sorry to bother you but TelAvivKid (formerly ProudWHITEIsraeli) Is being awfully abusive on the Israeli terrorism VfD page. Could you try to talk some sense into him? --LouieS 16:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for putting that ont eh mediation page, I went to you because I knew you had blocked him. I'm a little new here, didn't know quite where to put this sort of thing! --LouieS 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appleton's Cyclopedia

Any citation for the remark about Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography at Nihilartikel? Not that I doubt it, but it seems the sort of thing that should be cited. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Eric Gilder VfD

Hi, I noticed you voted keep in the VfD for Eric Gilder (professor). Just wanted to direct your attention to the VfD's for the other related pages:

Four Freedoms Federation - (talk) - (VfD)
Province of the Carolanas - (talk) - (VfD)
John Lilburne Research Institute - (talk) - (VfD)

They are all vanity/non-notable/hoax/original research by the same user (MPLX), and rapidly speeding toward deletion. Just thought you may want to reconsider your vote on this page. --JW1805 20:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy a science?

I am replying to a message you left on one of my pages entitled Monamihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monami . I take on board your suggestion that Wikipedia is not free web hosting.However,the implication was that my posting had not added anything and was my own philosophy.I had a question.Is philosophy not a science? Has Philosophy over the ages,not provided insights and clues to most important future discoveries? Surely,a philosophy is the springboard for free thought and kateral thinkinng? A Edward de Bono mentions in his book on lateral thinking, by jumping into an already dug hole and start digging, we will become adept at digging the same hole.It may be a better alternative to start digging another hole.One may find another path to the solution which may be better than the already formulated thought structures.

As such, does my entry not add to the philosophical content of Wikipedia?

I would appreciate your comments and anyone elses on this.

Mendel's photo deletion

Hi, could you check out these discussions I am having with the administrators Violetriga and Zscout370. I think both were tricked into deleting the mendel pictures but violetriga seems a bit offended by the suggestion? Am I missing something here. i am relatively new here so i don't want to rock the boat too much. David D. 16:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't redirect articles anyhow...please...

Don't redirect Fuhua Sec...to Singapore...please...thank you...Tdxiang 12:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Primary education in third world countries

You sarcastically commented that "WP must be one of the, er, finest resources anywhere if you want to know about primary school education in a random third world country" [2]. I find the implication that "random third world countries" are less worthy of our attention very offensive. On the other hand, that is exactly the sort of thing wikipedia should aspire to being, so I'm glad that it is part of the way there. Kappa 19:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as though he is dimissive of school articles in general rather than taking a pot shot at third world countries. Think about this, if we have every high school teacher (plus their photo) and school from every country in the world would WP be a useful resource? If we select a random country and find most of the articles are on high schools what does that say about that country? There are many holes in wikipedia, too many to be focusing on highschools and their teachers. Maybe someone should create a separate Wikischools pedia to cope with this problem of clutter. David D. 20:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay, maybe Singapore isn't "third world". The Cabal for unconditional keeps has really fucked up the deletion process on *unnotable* schools. Mind you if we start a wikischools, we need to star a wiki donut shops and wiki patches of spare land too. Dunc|☺ 15:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind wikischools would be equivalent to the trash can. Since we're not allowed to throw the trash out then we just buy a bigger can. I'd be happy for wiki donuts and wiki real estate to be housed in the same can. Wikitrash anyone? David D. (Talk) 16:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV additions on British and Irish Lions

MacRusgail keeps vandalising British and Irish Lions articles with Celt nationalist conspiracy theories. He really doesn't seem to care about NPOV at all. Could you take a look please?

Additionally I've just been IP banned accidently could you please unblock me?GordyB 19:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A little praise...

...for a job nicely done here. I liked the way a ranting ranter was stopped (or at least put off for a time, let's be realistic) through proper channels. Good style. --InterwikiLinksRule 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport cricket club

I don't think the votes should be combined. So I make it 9-7 in favour of deletion. No consensus.

Delete

Dunc
smoddy
Dcarrano
DES
Nandesuka
R. fiend
JamesBurns
Radiant
Squash

Neutral

Calton

Keep

Kappa
jguk
Sjakkalle
CalJW
Sam Vimes
Jonel
Tony Sidaway

Eugene van der Pijll 21:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No.

I don't think I should combine the votes. That would mean copying votes from one vote to the other, which is too close to putting words in other peoples' mouth.

Even if I would, "merge" votes are counted as "keep"; your keep count is missing jguk from the second vote and RHaworth from the first; you have miscounted Robdurbar, who voted "keep"; and if I were to reopen the vote, I'd then vote "keep" myself before closing it again, just because I think renominations should be discouraged.

That would make the combined score of the two votes 16-11 in favour of deletion: no consensus. Again.

But I'm not going to do that. Eugene van der Pijll 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm a physicist. Eugene van der Pijll 21:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives of the Midland Railway

"Prior to 1883 painted green. After 1883 the Midland adopted its distinctive crimson lake livery for passenger engines, with unliked black for goods engines."

Is this right? Or should it be 'unlined black'?

Locomotives of the Midland Railway

"Prior to 1883 painted green. After 1883 the Midland adopted its distinctive crimson lake livery for passenger engines, with unliked black for goods engines."

Is this right? Or should it be 'unlined black'?

Please unprotect Template:Delete

I am renaming all the speedy deletion templates to fit a common pattern as was discussed in the TfD of {{nn-bio}} (now {{db-bio}}). Can you please unprotect Template:Delete which I see you protected, long enough for me to do this? DES ^(talk) 19:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[double post]

quick apology

I'm sorry for my edit on "evolution," in it's redundancy; I think the page load messed and some text was corrupted and I didn't see, or who knows what, but whatever happened, thank you for deletion, for it would have been redundant; there is enough at the beginning of the article, explaining evolution is theory.

I only advise you to be more careful before accuing anyone of "vandalism" or "nonesense." That is very strong and wikipedia itself can define what they mean. I do not and cannot accuse you or say anyitnh about thing like overreacting, or harshness, because I cannot know, but I only want to point out that my edit was redundancy, not vandalism.

thank you

moves of speedy delete tempaltes

The reson i am moving the speedy deletion tempaltes is to make all the actual names have the same prefix. This will make them sort together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, as requested by several people during the recent TfD debate on these tempaltes. I am fixing all the double redirs as fast as I can, i think i have them all fixed now. All the existing names are left as normal redirs. Does that clarify things a bit? DES ^(talk) 23:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

outside opinion

Hi, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this poll . As an outside observer your opinion would be useful in helping resolve an edit conflict. --Gene_poole 01:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition point of view

I posted something on the NPOV talk page and on village pump asking for clarification about the SPOV policy. The argument going on the Creation Science page seems to be arguing that the "definition point of view" is correct and undisputed, and therefore the article can declare as fact that Creation Science is not science. It would seem to me that since CS has a different view of the definition of science that it must be presented as a view, and that the mainstream science definition of the word must be presented as a view. Am I missing something about NPOV? FuelWagon 15:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Duveneck School (2nd Nom.). This elementary school is equally as non-notable as Palo Alto Montessori School.Gateman1997 18:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport modelling

Hi - I hope you don't mind that I replaced the image you uploaded to the "Scales and gauges" section - it really didn't belong there. You could write a section about collectibles, and include the photo there. --Janke | Talk 16:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough

Hey, I noticed you've uploaded some pictures of Loughborough. I'm considering moving there to do a post-doctoral next year or so. Do you attend the university? If so, I could use some perspective on the town, university, etc. Ed Sanville 07:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the info... do you know anything about the housing market there, is it tight? Ed Sanville 03:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Railway Works

Surely Derby Works should redirect to Derby Railway Works? Not the way it now is. All the links are to the latter. Also Derby Works could be Derby Rolls Royce Works which maybe someone will get round to writing some time. Regards Chevin 16:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago the page on Derby Works was moved to one with the more descriptive title of Derby Railway Works, and a redirect put on Derby Works. You seem to have swapped this around. May I ask why? Chevin 17:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dash it

The horizontal line isn't necessary, of course, but it serves the purpose of marking off the dablink from the article. When I raised this at the relevant template Talk page, there was no objection to using it (though it can't be added to the template, because sometimes multiples instances are used). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there shouldn't be multiple-use instances, but there are — and changing the template would immediately make a lot of pages look very strange. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Berges

OK, when the text no longer matches the text in the potential copyvio article, why did you revert it to copyvio? Please put something on the Talk page when you do this. You did not put anything there either time - I even posted questions. It is clearly not the same words as the potential copyvio, so I really don't understand why you reverted without comment. --Habap 18:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting to the reworded version. --Habap 19:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sternberg Page

Dear collaborator,

I do not think your dealing with this article abide by the principles of wikipedia.

If you want to extend the ad-hominem attack upon this man you will have to justify it. But do not just raise the charge without justification.

The article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" is not an article on creationism. erasmocbc 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, why delete the external links with information on Sternberg and the controversy. The Washington Post, and the Wallstreet Journal are both reputable sources. Is there any reason not to include these in a fair presentation of this case. Further more. You have not justified your changes in the discussion page or seek consensus before changing it. Is wiki a means for abuse? or for fair presentation of information?

erasmocbc 20:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is documented by the Washington Post that Sternberg was treated badly. This fits perfectly with Thomas Kuhn's incommensurable paradigm thesis. There is nothing wrong with these edits.

I've reported your inability to stomach informational edits to a mediator.

The page, as it stood, was incorrect. It stated that there were no peer-reviewed articles published when, in fact, there were at least two. Indeed, the page itself goes on to name the two peer-reviewed articles that have been published - a clear contradiction of its own statement.

Furthermore, the Washington Post article documents that existing bias was found in the Sternberg case. All I'm doing is correcting the mistake concerning peer-reviewed articles and inserting the information from the WP article to substantiate the bias.

I fail to see how this constitutes an unacceptable POV. In most discussions, this would be called, "supporting evidence."