User talk:EMSPhydeaux

Welcome!

Hello, EMSPhydeaux, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! } Doc Tropics 05:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

After reviewing my comments on the talkpage, I realized I was too abrupt in my response to you. This wasn't intended personally, it's just a source of frustration that certain topics come up weekly and have to be addressed over and over again. I should have known better though, we're not supposed to bite the newcomers. In the meantime, another editor has changed the article in response to your comments. I know it's probably not the change you wanted, but I hope that it will help resolve this kind of difficulty in the future, as the subject is explained more clearly now. Again, sorry for biting. Doc Tropics 05:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I am asking you to please please please work with us, and not at cross-odds with us. All that you seem to be doing is wasting people's time. Please help us with our humungous backlog of articles. This is not the place to engage in debates; they will just end badly I am afraid.--Filll 20:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me to give up whenever you decide that you do not agree with me? I honestly do not understand why you seem to think this is reasonable.EMSPhydeaux 05:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do?

{{helpme}}I have been named a troll. I am new to wikipedia so maybe I'm not so good at realizing what a troll is. I do not know why they said I am a troll. I don't think they pointed out why I am a troll. So, I slept on it got a second opinion from someone in my house, and I do not think I was trolling. What do I do?

Well, you were not blocked or anything.... I would suggest that you examine if you are contributing to the article or not or is there is perhaps a less controversial area that you might like to edit first to "get your feet wet". --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, there is nothing I can do? I can only move on and try harder not to appear like a troll? That's fine with me I just want to know. :)EMSPhydeaux 15:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I will say that I am not going to take the time to investigate either said of this. You may do what you choose. I'm just suggesting that there are a great number of articles here on the site and you have chosen a controversial topic to start with. It might be easier to try to edit some other articles for a bit and then come back to this subject later. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the help ;).

EMSPhydeaux, If you have been called a troll, would you please provide a link to the diff where this happened? I see you are currently blocked, I will not assess that block myself, but while you are waiting for unblock review you can find the diff and post it here. Please let me know if you don't know how to post a diff. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You have been blocked for 31 hours due to violating WP:3RR on Creation science. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know that rule, and, btw, I didn't push any theory.EMSPhydeaux 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): No violation, no warning. Request handled by: - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24... 31... it all depends on the administrator. --əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... "Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations." I suppose anyone could claim an violation was aggravated because that is simply a matter of opinion.EMSPhydeaux 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, but... how long does it take to check if I broke the rules? I'm mean it's been like 5-6 hours past the time I requested the unblock, and all you have to do is count the number of reverts I have done.EMSPhydeaux 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you've been unblocked by Auburn due to the lack of warning. However, you did revert 4 times in a less than 24 hour period. In the future, please be careful about WP:3RR. In particular, do not continue edit warring on the article you have been edit warring on. JoshuaZ 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo JoshuaZ's comment above. Now that you are fully aware of the 3RR, there is no excuse for continuous reverting in the future. Nobody is entitled to 3 reverts, and you don't even have to be reverting the same material (though I don't necessarily agree with that aspect). Either way, edit warring is a blockable offense. - auburnpilot talk 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just for clarification I want to make sure I understand what was a revert,

15:24, 25 September 2007 EMSPhydeaux <<<This was my first edit. I don't think that counts as a revert, but maybe I'm wrong.

18:14, 25 September 2007 EMSPhydeaux <<<This was my first revert

19:03, 25 September 2007 EMSPhydeaux <<<This was my second revert

19:09, 25 September 2007 EMSPhydeaux <<<This is not a revert, because I was changing my own edit.

21:32, 25 September 2007 EMSPhydeaux <<<This was my third revert

So, I'm assuming you counted my first edit as a revert. Is revert the correct name for it? I'm going to try in the future to make sure everyone agrees with the revert before I do revert, but I still wanted to know what my confusion was.EMSPhydeaux 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 72.91.75.209 lifted or expired. Request handled by: - auburnpilot talk 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever unblocked me must have forgot to unblock my IP address I guess. Whatever the case, please unblock my ip.EMSPhydeaux 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)EMSPhydeaux 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polonium

it's disputed,

By who?

Thomas A. Baillieul for one. He says they could be radon halos initially. In fact, I've browsed the other scientific literature cited on Radiohalo, and this seems to be the rough consensus. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and even if true it adds almost no value to this article (though it may for others

Hmm... but it does add a little value. Why wouldn't you want to add a little value to an article? I changed like 2 or 3 words. It's not like I'm adding a paragraph with almost no value. The reason why I make little changes is because large changes have much more you guys dispute. If I start with small selections, there is less that I have to deal with in the way of complaining. Seriously, the way you guys are defending the article, there is almost no way to improve it.EMSPhydeaux 23:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't quite work that way. A controversial change is a controversial change. It doesn't matter if it's made by a longstanding editor or a newbie, or whether that editor has worked up from small controversial changes. If you want to help improve Wikipedia, there are plenty of other articles that it should be easy to make non-controversial improvements to. Don't get hung up on one article. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is only controversial among laymen... Not that I am not one. I am only saying scientists don't disagree with what I said. The reason I edit these articles is because I have researched this stuff.EMSPhydeaux 13:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the literature I've read on it, most scientists who've studied it seem to believe it's radon halos. So, they would disagree with what you said. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Berlinski

Hey, I see you contributed to the David Berlinski page recently. I read some of the recent Talk Page info and see that you had some run-ins with bullies. I am trying to make some coherent changes to the article and wondering if you'd be so good as to take a look and make whatever comments and changes you feel comfortable making. Thanks in advance! - DannyMuse (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have not been on in a while. I would like to make a change, but it seems to me that there are some here who do not care about fairly representing a person. Their only concern is to destroy anyone that is in opposition to evolution. Sure they may be wrong on the issue, but there is no need to make them look like idiots by distorting the facts. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]