User talk:Petral

Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents throughout history

Hello Petral, You don't waste anytime! I just barely put up the article Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents throughout history, and I am still building it--maybe a better name, any suggestions? I don't know...

Can I ask why the {{POV}} tag? Are you planning on discussing the reasons on the discussion page? If not I will remove the {{POV}} tag tag. Thank youTravb

Pardon me for butting in, but if I put a lighthouse in the lighthouse category I'm not preventing the reader from making up his/her own mind, I'm putting it in the correct category. This is the same type case. If its pseudoscience, it goes in the pseudoscience category. Its a definition thing, not a conclusion or POV thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the Afd Link

How do you move the Afd link, since you accuse me of not moving it [1] and have also deleted my notice on the deletion page about moving the article.Travb 03:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint of POV on Intelligent Design

Right to begin with, you aren't removing any of the mentions of creationism from ID, so surely you accept that ID as a connection to it, yes? Second, the core point of intelligent design is that a scientifically unverified and potentially unprovable "designer" designed the universe. That's great and fine if you believe it, but wiki's own definition of pseudoscience reads:

"The standards for determining of any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice as nonscience vary, but often include lack of empirical evidence, unfalsifiability, or failure to comply with scientific method or apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor."

1. There is no empirical evidence of a designer, divine or otherwise.

2. It is physically impossible to disprove the existence of something that supposedly may not even exist in our universe anymore.

3. There is no scientific method in reaching the idea of a divine creator.

4, and possibly most importantly. Occam's Razor is the example given in the article, and applies here. ID works off the logic that the human body is so complex that evolution couldn't possibly have made it, so the simplest answer is that someone just designed it. That is the definition of heuristic logic, Occam's Razor in particular.

Staxringold 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry I really didn't mean to put that on your user page. I really do apologize. Staxringold 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag

No prob. :) That's what I thought had happened. Sometimes the system contributes the authorship of the article to the poor sap trying to add the speedy notice. Merry Christmas! - Lucky 6.9 01:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked for violating the three revert rule on Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents.
This means that you have reverted an article four or more times in a 24-hour period.
Here are the offending reverts: 1 2 3 4
You are welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia when 24 hours have elapsed.

FeloniousMonk 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

he was blanking an article that was nominated for deletion, that isn't editing it's vandalism, mabybe you can try blocking him for the 5 violations of the don't vandalize things rule--Petral 06:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious misunderstanding, if you'll check and see why the article had to be protected in the first place, which you won't, because you're content to allow this troll to subvert the AfD process--Petral 06:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention one of those reverts isn't even me, it's an admin locking the page, you didn't even bother to read those links did you?--Petral 06:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact I just looked at all 4 of those, they're all the same link--Petral 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Travb2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

yes, I feel very sorry for you, blocked for 3RR? how odd, I mean, you didn't do anything wrong, and part of the secret plan that you keep spaming onto everyones talk pages--Petral 07:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what? so he's prtending to be blocked? so no one will notice, and block him for 3RR if they think he's blocked???--Petral 07:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge?

It is over, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promises of troop withdrawal by American presidents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret plan will be deleted, you won. Lets make it water under the bridge, and let bygones be bygones. You go back to your other previous user names, and I will go back to my business. Lets try to avoid crossing paths again. As a token of peace, I will delete the two paragraphs in reference to you on my talk page, and after the deletion is complete, delete all references to the whole affair. Lets forget this ever happened.Travb 10:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

I removed your post "*I don't think most people here care if they're being offensive or not--Petral 20:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)" from the ID talk page. A blanket personal attack is hardly helpful, as I am sure you will realize after a moment's reflection. Please try to WP:AGF. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Progress alert

This message regards Travb's WP:VIP alert concerning you. Please do not remove text from a page that you are currently in dispute with, particularly from their own talk page. If it does not belong on a page, someone in a more neutral position can remove it. // Pathoschild 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]