User talk:Mtloweman
Hi! I always loved that VW ad parody. Did it really lead to legal action? Anyway, mostly I'm wondering about the first part of your addition: The case resulted in much satire directed against Kennedy. You sure about that? I can't remember very much satire about it at all. Got any other examples? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"unblock|I have done no vandalism."
- Your account has not been blocked. Most likely you've been caught in a autoblock; someone else using your IP was blocked for vandalism. Please paste the full text of the message you're getting; we can't unblock without that IP address. Thanks. Shell babelfish 04:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
March 2008
[edit]
Hi, the recent edit you made to Ancient Pueblo Peoples has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Nomad constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Will (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Antioch College are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
neanderthal
[edit]I'm following what you are doing at Neanderthal and am interested. I say "keep it up". There's a wierdness about this subject I'd like to call your attention to the middle-bottom of the talk page section "the elephant in the room" where I changed the subject to the real elephant in the room. Also, have you seen the article caveman? Very strange. Chrisrus (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, with regard to the Salmon bones in that book of yours, is it true that, while the Neanderthals didn't eat salmon in thier cave, that there is evidence that they did eat it down by the river? You know, like bears do? Chrisrus (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The low amount of fish bones indicate that the Neanderthals may have come on the fish by accident or their fishing methods were just not up to snuff. Cro-Magnons on the other hand had organization, which would also imply politics and leadership as their decendents have today. Neanderthals were in a real sense the true alien. They were human but they must have had a very different outlook and way of thinking. This appears to hook up with their common ancestry with us but they were a side branch of humanity and therefore evolved different responses.
Huh. Interesting. The way I look at it, the salmon bones not being dried out and stored in the cave until the Cromags occupied it says to me that the cromags were acting like normal people, and the Neanders were acting like normal bears. I think the only place I'd quibble with you so far is your use of words like "people" to describe an animal that didn't dry out the extra salmon from the salmon run and store it in the cave for the rest of the year. That's what humans would do. Any animal that doesn't do that in millions of years of occupation doesn't rise to the level of what I'd call "a person" or "a human being". That's a "humanoid" or "homonid" or "close relative of humans", but I like to save words "human" and "people" for actual Homo Sapians that think and act like people universally do, not like bears universally do. Chrisrus (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I've done some work on the article caveman, which is still not acceptable, in my view, but should be. I invite your comment or contribution to it. Chrisrus (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
May 2010
[edit] Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Military career of Muhammad. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Inclusion of unsourced material without an explanation in your edit summary is in violation of Wikipedia policy of not publishing original research. Please take this into consideration in your future edits. Peter Deer (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)