User talk:Professor marginalia/Archives
Talk archived automatically after 7 days:
Invitation to join a Project
[edit]Dear Professor, I am starting a project to overhaul and balance the article on Waldorf ed. I would like to invite you to take part because of your ongoing contributions to the page. Please le me know at my Talk page if you would like to participate. Wonderactivist 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Professor,
I appreciate your questioning the need for a project - it is an important step. I plan to use "requests for comment" as Longhair suggested in his note back to me. I also pla to continue getting input from him and other Wiki admnistrators. I think that at some point it is going to have to be clear that the page on Wikipedia has to be concise, clear, and unbiased - on both sides.
I think a project will help to move some of the in-fighting off of the page's discussion section and onto a project page - and then with admin help, it can hopefully end the disputes.
Thanks and I hope you'll join the team! Lucie Wonderactivist 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
New Project Page and Invitation
[edit]Dear Professor M, I just want to again invite you to join the project - the project page has been moved to its proper Wiki place (I am here a year and still a newbie really), User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page. I really think you have a whole lot to offer this project and with the help of unbiased Wiki editors, I believe we can end the ongoing edit wars that have been the waste of so much time for so many really good people. Please do join us, we're currently talking about the introduction. Wonderactivist 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
[edit]A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Hgilbert 08:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
[edit]
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner.
|
Blanking of Lydia Jackson
[edit]Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Lydia Jackson. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Schutz 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, this standard template was probably a bit harsh; your edit, even though you actually blanked the page, was probably done in good faith and was not vandalism, as discussed on my talk page. Schutz 00:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit warring
[edit]This was many reverts over several days, but with further investigation of Pete K, the block on you does not appear to have been warranted. Keep in mind, however, that repeatedly reverting is is not a solution to any dispute regardless of the character of the other party. A revision is not going to be implemented simply by reverting. If Pete K continues with personal attacks, edit warring, or other disruption, please report it to me on User talk:Centrx or to another administrator, such as on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. —Centrx→talk • 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration
[edit]There is a current request for arbitration relating to the articles Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Hgilbert 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.
For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Reopening of arbitration
[edit]I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The reviewing of the case has finished. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Heyo. You placed an A7 speedy deletion tag on the article for former NFL player Bill Atessis on one of your recent vandalism patrols. All professional athletes meet the current notability guideline, so I removed the tag. You'll want to watch out for the hair-trigger on Twinkle. :-P Regards, ➪HiDrNick! 04:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Reversion of Vandalism
[edit]Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my personal user page. I appreciate it! --Skb8721 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you X 100
[edit] Ryan Sheckler[edit]No, what happened is that you made the correction as I was changing the vandalism edit. So when I saved it it went back to the vandalized version. It was accidental. You saw the error before me. Fighting for Justice 03:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome[edit]Welcome! Hello, Professor marginalia, 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
Plagiarism on Prohibition in the United States[edit]Hi there. I noticed you removed large chunks from this article on the grounds that it was plagiarised from other sources. Can you provide any evidence? The bulk of what you removed claiming it was taken from a blog, by checking back through the dates you can find that it appeared on Wikipedia long before appearing on the blog claimed to be written by someone else. As for the other bits, can you please provide evidence to support the claims of plagiarism? Ben W Bell talk 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Johann Hari[edit]Hi. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann hari page, which I know you've taken an interest in. As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about. This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR81.129.156.202 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry about the above. Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages; [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way. FelixFelix talk 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Daikon names[edit]Howdy. This is kind of obscure, but you made an edit in January to daikon, linked here. It added a number of foreign synonyms of Daikon, with an "Encyclopedia of Asian Food" as the source, to an existing sentence. I am wondering if the source confirmed the other, exisiting names, or was intended to apply only to the newly-added second half of the sentence. (That gets confusing in Wikipedia, when a footnote supports only part of a given sentence). I'm skeptical about the earlier-added name "winter radish" as a synonym, but don't feel like hunting down the cited book to challenge it. Best regards. -Agyle 06:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC) DRV[edit]There is no problem really, just the original author wanted it to be kept even though it is about a Non notable person. He is the one making all the socks. It should be closed to stop all the nonsense. Make sense? Reply on my talk page. Thanks- Rjd0060 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. · AndonicO Talk 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Prohibition - film[edit]I agree "hilarious" should be removed from before "Some Like It Hot"... I just removed the incorrect capitalisation that was already present. AirdishStraus 09:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) American Prohibitation[edit]yeah, 1657 didnt seem right so i changed it to 1857 and then got confused and made it 17 before changing it to 1857. sorry 219.88.79.63 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Citation templates[edit]If adding references to a page that already has them, please use the citation templates - they're easy to fill out and there are numerous resources that let you do so automatically for books, peer-reviewed journals and certain other template types. Also, your recent edit to Gish duplicated some text, you may have already corrected it. Thanks, WLU 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality Project[edit]Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. Jame§ugrono 07:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Greetings…I noticed at one time you were very active on the Yamashita’s gold article. That article is now ‘protected from editing’ and into editing negotiations (POV pushing issues and such) Please stop-by and give it a read. Jim (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Good point[edit]——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Creation Science[edit]Whatever you may say about the edits I made, they were NOT personal opinion. I am, I admit, biased, but so is everyone on earth. There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist... If you would look at the facts, you would realize the absolute STUPIDITY of the evolution THEORY(it is NOT a fact...) The article mentions that creation is unprovable, yeah, whatever, it might be... but so is macroevolution! I believe in microevolution (i.e. survival of the fittest), and that IS testable but how can you possibly test macroevolution? I was simply relating the facts to a blinded society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.121.48 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Warning templates[edit]Hi, Were you aware of WP:WARN? I noticed you added what appeared to be a home-made warning template (which did the job very adequately) to Anon IP above's talk page. WP:WARN contains pre-written user warning templates which make warning users much quicker - just a cut and paste. They're simple enough that I've memorized the ones I used regularly and they save a lot of typing. But if you like the personal touch, I can respect that. WLU 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
NOR Request for arbitration[edit]Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Louisiana Baptist University-AFD[edit]Though I don't give a fig if the article is deleted or not, I wanted to point out to you that it has not been recently "abusively gutted". It has recently been stripped of information which was improperly sourced. The article has been a magnet for editors from one side trying to put a promotional spin on the article, and editors on the other trying to provide some balance to the hype through unallowed original research, speculation, and a self-published source. Unfortunately when there are few independent sources available, editors are often impatient to ignore WP:RELY, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH to fill gaps in the article space. Gaps in the available sources do not justify the abandonment of core policy. Removing non-compliant content is not "abusive", it's essential. And what should happen next is that editors source all edited claims, properly. If you can't source it, you can't say it~that simple. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Intro to E[edit]
Re What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know! discussion on appropriate sources[edit]Hi! The position that I understand you to be taking in this discussion strikes me as so bizarre that I feel I might be misunderstanding you. Are you really saying that you don't believe a factual science book to be an appropriate source on a question of scientific fact?
I'm having a problem with an editor on this article who's contesting the reliability of Numbers' account of this organisation. I don't think he has any legitimate basis for his dispute, but it might be helpful if somebody such as yourself (with access to a wider range of accounts than merely Numbers) could venture an opinion. HrafnTalkStalk 08:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
We may have a concensus version of the problem paragraph. Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Arbitration notice[edit]This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Ditto[edit]Regards this edit, I've the same distaste, though on heavily contested pages, it's sometimes necessary. One thing I did with dissociative identity disorder today was removed the uglifying reference link if, say a largish block of text was all linked to multiple citations of the same source. Instead, I sourced (in this case, twice) the book, but for future editors, added <!-- comment citations--> like this : <!-- Marginalia, 2007--> that way readers don't have to see the citation, but editors still know what sentence is sourced to what reference. I don't know if this is supported by policy or guidelines anywhere, but it's handy. Doesn't make the editing any simpler 'cause there's still large blocks of text interrupted by comments, but you run into the same problem with citation templates and ref tags, and there's always the preview button. WLU (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
A minor miracle more like...[edit]
Plagiarism and Copyright[edit]Thank you for your friendly note, but I do not agree with your understanding of policy. You state : "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." There is never a fair use word-for-word copy of someone else's work here that is not clearly identified as a "quote" to its source. At wikipedia we don't lift other's work, we cite it in references and write our own copy." Your assertion that we cite something and rewrite it, is not correct. Our policies pages, see for example verifiability and original research clearly state that we can quote sources. And in fact give examples where sources are quoted. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your above to include this issue more clearly. Wjhonson (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
RR[edit]RR had been so harassed by certain disruptive elements during the FAC process, and had received so little community support, that he quit and had his account deleted. It is too bad, but on the other hand, RR quitting (and another) and the AfD is probably what it took to get the article enough attention to make FA, in my opinion. --Filll (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Like a barnstar, but different[edit] WLU (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks![edit]Thanks Prof Marginalia for the diligent work you did on the Anti-frogman techniques article. It is better now, and I have a better understanding of the NOR policy. N2e (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Check it out...[edit]So all of our brilliant ideas are for naught. Check out what it says in {{cite book}} under the Description of fields. Of course, that only counts for the first reference, and if the book is used multiple times, we still have a problem. WLU (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Edit conflicts on new section[edit]If you want to add a new section to a talkpage without getting edit-conflicts ("trying again"), you should use the +-link at the top of the talkpage to create a new section, rather than appending it directly onto the last section. Just a tip. :) HrafnTalkStalk 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC) expelled[edit]thanks for your trying to improve the Expelled article. But the tone will not change, I am afraid. Northfox (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In case you are interested in Expelled, please see User talk:Merzul/Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/rewrite. (It is a co-incidence that it ended up on my user page, I'm not in charge). It is meant to be an opportunity to experiment with different structures and different tones of voice. Also, since it's not live we can allow the pro-ID crowd to basically do what they want without immediately reverting and without losing our temper. I assume you are yourself against ID, but raised issues about the tone? I had similar concerns, so feel free to check it out. (This rewrite is not intended to replace the main page; but if it succeeds, the idea would be to show editors, such as Guetterda, who asked to see something different, what an alternative to the current page would look like). Merzul (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Expert opinion needed[edit]Request for comment on Talk:David Snoke. It would be great if you could help with this. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Woodrow Wilson[edit]I'm wondering if you can help me with getting the article on Woodrow Wilson to Featured Article status.--Briaboru (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Woodrow Wilson[edit]No, just myself at the moment. Perhaps i should recruit more mebers' services.--Briaboru (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC) I share your concerns about tagging articles with this possibly not notable category, especially since many of the articles are not associated with paranormal. It seems not well documented the extent that: "It has since been applied, more loosely, to refer to any belief without empirical or logical foundations." Ward20 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, I may have gone over the top with turning this into a category. I would like to continue the discussion on the True-believer syndrome discussion page to give other interested parties a better chance to find the discussion and contribute.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikicookie[edit] auto-lemon[edit]Hi, please note my reply here. TONY (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC) ID[edit]Prof M - I've done a revision of the lead and overview for the ID page, here, per various requests. mostly it's shuffling things around for tone and structure, plus a couple of points I'd like to delete, and one that I'd like to repatriate, but can't quite figure out where, yet. tell me if you don't think this makes for a more neutral read. if I can get your feedback (and the feedback of the others I've copied this notice to), then I'll take it over and offer it as a suggestion on the ID page. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC) article proposed for deletion[edit]==Proposed deletion of Hanksville quarry==  A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hanksville quarry, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Lakinekaki (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC) please provide reason for inclusion, and references that would support it. Lakinekaki (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Cool[edit]That is a neat picture, and I'm always pleased to have another barnstar! Thank you kindly and I'm glad you saw the greatness of citation templates. You're using Diberri to generate them, of course? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Hrafn[edit]PM, Where did Hrafn go? There was a proper method to retire from WP, but he did not use it. Instead, it sounded like he was depressed and wanted an Admin to do it for him. It would be nice to have him back, and, as his friendly nemesis, I have asked him to come back. Perhaps your should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Flood Geology RfC[edit]There is a RfC on Talk:Flood geology regarding a statement in the lead of the article. You seem to take a balanced approach in the edits that I have seen in various articles (I'm pretty sure you've reverted me once or twice), particularly with respect to verifiability, and I would appreciate it if you would look over the discussion.LowKey (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Yamashita's gold[edit]You made a comment on the Yamashita’s gold talk page (thanks, by the way). The IP Editor has taken the liberty of drawing a conclusion to your comment. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you would comment on the talk page if your comment was in support of the IP version, as indicated by the IP Editor. Talk:Yamashita's_gold#Third_opinions_in_support_of_IP_material: Here is the comment you made, with the IP Editor's conclusion: Third opinions in support of IP material: "I've been involved in content disputes over citing court documents before. In general,there is no problem using court docs per se, but there is a problem when editors take liberties drawing conclusions from them. Disputes in this article won't be resolved if they're shaped as a battle between two alternative "conclusions" to be made about the outcome of the trial. The article simply needs to report the story about the trial, beginning, middle, end, and not try to go further, using the trial papers to "prove" or "disprove" that the treasure really existed. To do so at wp would be a misuse of primary sources." Professor marginalia (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC) -- (This general statement of WP policy is actually in support of the IP position, because the IP material clearly identifies allegations as allegations and identifies the decision of the court as a decision of the court. Nothing in the IP material suggests that the treasure actually exists. It merely relates that a US court has awarded Roxas a judgment against Marcos for theft of a portion of the treasure -- which is an established fact.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.94.213 (talk) Jim (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC) I forgot to add that I used your comment as "against"...and will remove it if you wish. Sorry. Jim (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Chemtrail edit summary[edit]I'm guessing the "fu comment" means further - but it is open to other interpretations! :) Verbal chat 18:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Special creation[edit]Could you take a look at Special creation? The article is an incoherent mess. I made a brief attempt at clearing out some of the worst waffle in it, back lack good sources for a more coherent explication. Thanks. HrafnTalkStalk 14:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Response to you last message at WP:NOR[edit]Hi. I responded to your last message at WP:NOR New footnote at end of first paragraph. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your response. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC) I made another response. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you again for your response. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Happy Holidays[edit] Thanks[edit]Thanks for the heads up on NOR --PBS (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC) RFC at WP:NOR-notice[edit]Thanks for letting me know, I do see this as a serious issue. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks for weighing in in recent weeks at WT:NOR. It was very much in need of another experienced commentator intimately familiar with the content policies and guidelines. Kudos. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]for the lengthy investment of time and thought you provided in articulating many of the issues that come into play at WP:NOR, in particular at WP:PSTS. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]I was rather surprised that an issue that I though was relevant to a matter of policy was not being addressed. I will respond in more detail soon. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Help possibly needed[edit]I'm away for a few days, but when I get back, are you at all interested in helping me see if anything should be done about an editor who after quite a long time of being told he is doing OR (including some blocks) carries on? If you look at for instance Talk:Exodus or Talk:Mount Horeb you should see what I mean. If this doesn't interest you, no problem. dougweller (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: RFC template[edit]No worries, honest mistake. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Hi! I noticed the good work you've been doing with templates like {{hat|Resolved}} at WP:NOR/N. What do you think about editors adding to your very brief summaries? Here's an example from WP:NOR/N with a proposed added summary: Commenting on a graph[edit]
I'll look here on your talk page for any response that you might care to give. Thanks.--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Woodmorappe article[edit]Could you possibly look over John Woodmorappe and the Talk page and give an opinion? I am seriously attempting to improve the article - the NA:AFS section in particular - but Aunt Entropy has now reverted all my changes twice without discussion, and with two different reasons given in the edit summaries. I really don't want to edit-war; I just want a good quality article, and I would value another opinion (or an opinion to be precise) of the changes I made. I am asking you because I respect your approach to sound content and I believe Aunt Entropy does as well. I'm not looking for an arbiter, just some input so the article can move forward. LowKey (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Joined comments[edit]Your recent edit to Talk:Creation-evolution controversy was split and kinda messed up the header - so I combined the two segments. If I've mis-interpreted what you meant to do, then please redo and sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Hi. I just reduced a discussion to show-hide mode at WP:NOR/N using your previous work as a model. Here's the diff. (I didn't have to add {{resolved}} because it was already there.) Could you direct me to where I can find info re the templates? For example, I wasn't sure of the purpose of {{hab}} at the end. I'll look here on your talk page for any response that you might care to give. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The Business and Economics Barnstar[edit]
Economics articles are looking a lot better today than they did a year ago, and your efforts have made a major contribution to that. --LK (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Help:Archiving a talk page[edit]I think you were confused because your last edit to Help:Archiving a talk page seems to have been an attempt to save an archive of another talk page probably information cut from Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory --PBS (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC) You probably want to save it to Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory/Archive 2 if you do then You don't need to add the archive to the archive box because it has the auto flag set ({{archive box |auto=yes|search=yes}} see {{archive box}}) --PBS (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Kosher tax[edit]Thank you for your lucid and thoughtful remarks. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Inflation RM[edit]You previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Inflation. The article has been moved again so, if you care to clarify of reiterate your position, please participate at Talk:Inflation (financial)#Requested move: part 2. — AjaxSmack 23:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Help with Robert Sungenis Article[edit]Hi, could you please check out the talk page for Robert Sungenis's article? I'm trying to follow the rules, but I can't understand them - at least as presented by Slp-1. Please take a look at what I wrote last about quotes from Sungenis and how some are allowed and others are not. I'm sure there is some logic to be followed in the wiki rules, but I just need to see them somewhere or have them explained better. Thanks! -- Liam Patrick (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I asked Slp-1 to comment on the Robert Sungenis talk page about the Notability message. He hasn't commented, but I see you've had some interest. Please check out the discussion page there. I'm tempted to remove the Notability template at the top of the article if there isn't further discussion, on the idea that his mention in the Washington Post is sufficient to establish notability. Delrayva (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) AfD[edit]Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special creation. Borock (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Intro to genetics[edit]I'm aiming to keep this article focused on using human examples, since that is the organism people are most familiar with! The major problem is that you are writing at much too high a level, using phrases like "The various formulations of a given gene are identified as alleles of that gene", "these various alleles determine the development of individual organisms ". This is fine in the genetics article, but the into article is aimed at people with no background in science whatsoever. If you wanted, you could list problems on the talkpage and I could try to change the text to deal with these issues without raising the reading level to the point where this article fails to achieve its aim. Alternatively, I can just edit and simplify your additions, but I may not always understand which issue you were attempting to correct. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
letting it slide, but...[edit]please don't archive discussions because you are personally tired of debating the issue. I wasn't disagreeing about the pointlessness of the quote, but the bigger issue about how to use wp:OR was worth pursuing. frankly, I think you're in the wrong there. I'm sure it will come up in another context. though, so no worries. --Ludwigs2 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Introduction to Evolution[edit]Regarding the Introduction to Evolution. I performed a superficial critique and generated a list of concerns that should be addressed. I'm not certain I'm the best person for the task; both in depth of knowledge and the bias to which I likely suffer. However, if I even remotely sense support in restoration of the FA version, then I will revert. Your thoughts on the article talk page would be both respected and appreciated.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) "Expelled" merge[edit]I'm looking for help on what to do next for the merge, which looks to be okay to go ahead and do. I'm assuming that as a non-admin, I actually can't do the merge myself unless I can just go ahead and move the information as proposed and then nominate the merged page for deletion. Seregain (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC) No, I saw you merging material, but do we really need to keep the defunct article even as a redirect? There are no major links to it. Seregain (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Okay. I saw both your and SarekOfVulcan's explanations regarding licensing. Yes, it seems pointless, but, well, that's the point of licensing. <<grin>> I've withdrawn the nomination. Thank you. Seregain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC). You are doing a yeoman's job on that page. I've almost abandoned it to the ownership of User:EGMichaels, but if he doesn't stop calling you a vandal, I will make a report on him. (He even claimed the archiving bot "vandalised" his comment!) I warned him, but he ignored me an called it "vandalising" again. You are a good editor that doesn't deserve such treatment. In fact, I think you have the temperament to be a good administrator here. So, keep up the good work, and you have my back when you need it. Auntie E. (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Genesis creation myth-source check[edit]Hello Professor, what references did you check and which references were you unable to check due to a lack of access?Deadtotruth (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC) If I understand you correctly, you're okay with the philo and augustine citations concerning ex nihilo. Below, I've posted several refs with the quotes that you would like more info on. Some are new and represent biblical commentators. The best quote from the scientists is the quote from George Smoot, the 2006 Noble prize winner in physics. Ex nihilo is not simply a religious concept - it is primarily a philosophical concept and secondarily a religious and scientific concept. I hold the view that Genesis was written by Moses from a philosophical perspective - a view that is shared by Philo, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Since we are discussing the genesis "myth" it is important to understand how the symbols in the "myth" are understood by philosophers, theologians, scientists, etc. and how they relate efforts in their fields symbolically to their understanding of the "myth." This doesn't mean that they are right or wrong in their understanding of the "myth" nor is that relevant. For instance, the concept "nothing" to a theologian does not mean the same thing to a physicist nor does it mean the same thing to a philosopher. Nonetheless all of these groups of individuals are aware of the Genesis "myth" and some of them from each of those fields believe the symbology used indicates what to them means creation from nothing others in those same fields believe it means creation from something. The quotes: Wrinkles in Time, George Smoot and Keay Davidson, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, (p. 17: “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”) God and the Astronomers, second edition, Robert Jastrow, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, (p. 14: “the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”) Before the Beginning – Cosmology Explained, George F. R. Ellis, London and New York: Boyars/Bowerdean, 1993, 1994, (p. 97: “To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself.”) Quantum Reality—Beyond the New Physics, Nick Herbert, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, (p. 177: “Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.””). “Forty Minutes With Einstein,” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 50 (1956), A. Vibert Douglas, (p. 100: “Einstein tried to avoid such a beginning by creating and holding onto his cosmological “fudge factor” in his equations until 1931, when Hubble’s astronomical observations caused him to grudgingly accept “the necessity for a beginning.””) Matthew Henry Commentary on Genesis - “The manner in which this work was effected: God created it, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. By the ordinary power of nature, it is impossible that any thing should be made out of nothing; no artificer can work, unless he has something to work on. But by the almighty power of God it is not only possible that something should be made of nothing (the God of nature is not subject to the laws of nature), but in the creation it is impossible it should be otherwise, for nothing is more injurious to the honour of the Eternal Mind than the supposition of eternal matter. Thus the excellency of the power is of God and all the glory is to him.” Wesley’s Explanatory Notes - “The manner how this work was effected; God created, tha tis, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre - existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters, and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing.” Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown - “created--not formed from any pre-existing materials, but made out of nothing.” John Calvin Commentary on Genesis Volume 1 - “In the beginning. To expound the term “beginning,” of Christ, is altogether frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very commencement, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth. His language therefore may be thus explained. When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He moreover teaches by the word “created,” that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term יצר, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but ברא, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute.” Deadtotruth (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for responding-let me explain some of these:
Hello Professor, I've included the quotes with web addresses for the biblical commentaries including Calvin below which should help you view the reference: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Unabridged, Genesis to Deuteronomy, by Matthew Henry see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1.Gen.ii.html - “The manner in which this work was effected: God created it, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. By the ordinary power of nature, it is impossible that any thing should be made out of nothing; no artificer can work, unless he has something to work on. But by the almighty power of God it is not only possible that something should be made of nothing (the God of nature is not subject to the laws of nature), but in the creation it is impossible it should be otherwise, for nothing is more injurious to the honour of the Eternal Mind than the supposition of eternal matter. Thus the excellency of the power is of God and all the glory is to him.” John Wesley’s notes on the whole Bible the Old Testament, Notes On The First Book Of Moses Called Genesis, by John Wesley, p.14 see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.ii.ii.ii.i.html - “Observe the manner how this work was effected; God created, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters, and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. Observe when this work was produced; In the beginning — That is, in the beginning of time. Time began with the production of those beings that are measured by time. Before the beginning of time there was none but that Infinite Being that inhabits eternity.” Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, 1871, Genesis chapter 1 see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/jamieson/jfb.x.i.i.html - “created--not formed from any pre-existing materials, but made out of nothing the heaven and the earth—the universe. This first verse is a general introduction to the inspired volume, declaring the great and important truth that all things had a beginning; that nothing throughout the wide extent of nature existed from eternity, originated by chance, or from the skill of any inferior agent; but that the whole universe was produced by the creative power of God.” Commentaries on The First Book of Moses Called Genesis, by John Calvin, Translated from the Original Latin, and Compared with the French Edition, by the Rev. John King, M.A, 1578, Volume 1, Genesis 1:1-31 see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vii.i.html - “In the beginning. To expound the term “beginning,” of Christ, is altogether frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very commencement, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth. His language therefore may be thus explained. When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He moreover teaches by the word “created,” that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term יצר, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but ברא, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute.” Deadtotruth (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Professor, I'm still waiting for a response to my earlier questions: 1) which sources do you not have access to that you need quotes from. I posted some of the easier ones to get things rolling. 2) You introduced a new criteria that you would like the refs to meet and I have supplied four additional refs that I believe meet your new criteria to add to the group. This is now the third request for a response concerning the four additional refs. Also you asked for the info on Calvin and now that I have gone to the trouble of supplying the info a response would be appreciated. I don't necessarily agree with your criteria for the refs since it comes from a specific POV IMO, but I am willing to try to accomodate you if I can in order to reach a consensus. Unless I hear a reasonable objection from you concerning the four additional refs I will add them to the article on 4/5/10. I am trying to understand your criteria and a response concerning the four refs that I believe meet your criteria would be helpful in trying to understand your requests concerning refs for ex nihilo.Deadtotruth (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC) The Brooke, George J. ref is not my edit.Deadtotruth (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Well Meaning Advice[edit]Professor -- as you can see from Aunt's comment and from mine, you have walked into a landmine here. I do hope that you can stay around because you started well. I finally caught up to your initial comments and see that you impressed Alastair as well. As I said, you STARTED well by beginning a discussion to a talk page. I did the same when I came here and was played in a number of circles with bogus ANIs and bogus sockpuppet accusations, neither of which were ever taken up by an administrator because they lacked any value. I apologize for mistaking you for Pico. That said, it's important to follow through appropriately. Having STARTED well, you've been made aware of some of the history here, and you've been introduced to the editor you have the most problem with -- Deadtotruth. I can only defend other editors from arbitrary deletion. I cannot defend individual sources I do not own. But I can work to maintain mutual respect between editors and request they work together rather than (whever-you-want-to-call-it-to-each-other's-work). Now you've been given the advantage of knowing who made the edits. You have an opportunity to actually work WITH that other editor (aka collaboration). Notice that Aunt's trouble is the term "vandalism." Fine. How about "deletion without discussion with the editor in question"? Granted, a talk page is the place to start, and in most cases is sufficient. Now you've been given the opportunity to discuss this with the actual editor who researched these refs. He could perhaps agree with you. Heck, knowing a bit of the history here you could perhaps suggest better ways (and even help) to anchor the contested subject. I apologize for using a term you didn't like. Will you at least stop deleting another editor's work without at least discussing it with him (by whatever term you DO like to call this action you wouldn't want done to you)? While I do appreciate your attempting to discuss it with me, I don't have those books (well, I have one), and these are not my edits to defend. It would be as useless getting my agreement as it would be getting Alastair's. Dead may have seen something you missed, or you may have seen something he missed -- but no one will ever really know if you don't discuss it with the appropriate person.EGMichaels (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Professor -- as I said before, stop sparring with me and try to collaborate with editors when you wish to, er, improve their work. That's not a temper tantrum. It's a simple request for collaborative editing (it's the way Wikipedia works). As for Pico, you can't be left out of something that you are participating in.EGMichaels (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Mk5384[edit]Have you lost your mind? I have violated absolutely no rule at "Genesis Creation myth". Don't you dare ever come near my talk page again.Mk5384 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Sources[edit]Prof. M I fully agree with your suggested approach. Since I have access to the Oxford sources I'd be happy to provide the full text to others, however, I'm not sure how that is done in a legit capacity. I'm assuming that if I pasted an entire entry onto the talk page that might be frowned upon. If not I'll do it ASAP. Any other ideas?Griswaldo (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Race and Intelligence history[edit]Thanks for your help with this article. The discussions can be contentious, but the more editors we get involved with this process, the better. David.Kane (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC) What part of "Yes" do you have a problem with?[edit]I'm not sure what you're after. I took your word for it that you wouldn't delete ex nihilo altogether and even unwatched the page based on what you SAID you were going to do. As for elimination of ex nihilo, this was a typical PiCo edit: [11]. You'll note that there is no remaining support for the view, no mention of ANY scholar holding it, and merely two statements that it's not in the text. While I have no problem giving pre-eminence to the chaos view (and have stated such several times), I DO have a problem treating either view like it isn't held by anyone. However, your continuing to press this after I invited you to make the adjustments we discussed leads me to suspect that you actually don't want to make those adjustments. Other than merely arguing, what are you after?EGMichaels (talk)
On Jensen (1969)[edit]Did you catch my last comment here [12]? One of us is using the wrong version of Jensen (1969). Is it me? David.Kane (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC) EphBlog[edit]The EphBlog article is a draft. It was deleted after an AfD a while ago. One of my longer term projects is to clean it up and resubmit it at some point. I was told that it was perfectly acceptable to work on such drafts in my own userspace. Do you disagree? David.Kane (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) ArbCom case[edit]I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction: You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) RFAR Race and intelligence[edit]An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Your proposed principle[edit]I think you accidentally duplicated some of your material in the previous section of Xxanthippe, at least the same sentences appear in both. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Mediation[edit]I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.--Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected[edit]For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC) It's good to see you editing Race and intelligence again.[edit]I see you have been taking great care to make sure that the article content is encyclopedic, verifiable, and neutral on the Race and intelligence talk page. I'm learning a lot from how you analyze the sources. Keep up the good work. I'll try to get some better sources into that article soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Creation myth[edit]You've done great work on the article. I'll see what I can do to help with the new one.Griswaldo (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
NPOV proposal?[edit]Prof, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your help on the Jensen article[edit]Any other changes you wanted to make, especially those to remove any POV taint, would be much appreciated. David.Kane (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the excellent evidence follow-up in the ArbCom case.[edit]I see from following diffs on my watchlist that you have been updating [| your evidence submission] in the ArbCom case. In the off chance that someone who needs to see that helpful evidence isn't following pages the same way, you may want to follow Roger Davies's suggestion and add the word "NEW" to the title of your section. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I beg your pardon?[edit]What is this all about? We're in the middle of an arbitration--we're expected to back up our arguments with diffs. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Please don't disrupt my talkpage with your dispute, if you want to talk about it please do it here on your talkpage. So , look, I disagree with your claims, your POV and your attitude, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) ID[edit]Hi PM, I noticed you said on talk that you'd read some philosophy papers about ID. Could you let me know which ones? I'd like to compile a list of the recent academic philosophy sources the article could be using, so I'm asking anyone who might have suggestions. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Prof. M, thanks again for the spectacular work you did at Creation myth. Flood myth requires similar attention. I have started the job and asked for help elsewhere but I thought I'd let you know as well in case you had any interest. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) socks[edit]can you find someone appropriate to do a checkuser on Ferahgo and Captain Occam? I have not followed this user closely and do not know the evidence but share your suspiciopns; maybe you can provide a reasonable case at the checkuser page and we can settle this Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Galton, Baker and Jensen[edit]The description of Galton's claims about the intelligence of various groups is based both on Baker and Jensen, whereas the quote about Jews is only in Baker. For this reason, it's best to cite both of them at the end of the paragraph; otherwise, Baker must be cited twice in consecutive sentences.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Talk:Race and intelligence and our new IP editor 68.96...[edit]Thanks for collapsing that thread just now. I was wondering how that behaviour should be tackled. Won't be surprised if he or the same material pops up again very soon. What that behaviour reminds me of is a couple of people I know with Aspergers Syndrome, who are both very intelligent, and very interested in the collection of knowledge, but very narrowly focussed at any given time. There is no ill will in their enthusiastic sharing of that narrow band of knowledge with anyone who will listen, and if the right platform exists for such expression they can be very valuable contributors. A diplomatic approach is going to be needed here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC) @Professor marginalia: You have patiently explained things to the IP, but this is almost certainly the person who has conducted edit wars and talk page dumps in order to promote their POV. See Talk:Human evolution/Archive 3 and Talk:Human evolution history and 71.68.251.54 contribs and 68.222.236.154 contribs for examples (last two IPs blocked for a year). Past experience shows that no amount of discussion satisfies them because they have interpreted "anyone can edit" to mean they can periodically post their stuff indefinitely. The only way to handle this person is to firmly remove their material because leaving it displayed, even on a talk page, is a victory as far as they are concerned. Perhaps I could archive the stuff at Talk:Race and intelligence (i.e. manually delete it and move it to an archive page)? Or do you have a suggestion? I will look here for any reply (no need for talkback), or post at my talk if that is your preference. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom Holzl[edit]I respect you a lot. But Tom Holzl is just a troll using the web to self-publish his own views. Please, just do not feed him. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Please keep an eye on my edits[edit]Hi, Professor marginalia, I see you have been keeping an eye on several chronically contentious articles while I have been reading new books on the subjects I try to cover in source lists to share with you and other conscientious wikipedians. There seems to be ongoing off-wiki stirring the pot keeping those articles contentious, and thus it appears I will have to take up active editing again now that I have done more reading. Because you have been on board longer than I have, I will be glad to hear your advice on how effectively to collaborate with conscientious editors who have the policies of the project at heart as we all work together to build an encyclopedia. Feel free to keep an eye on my edits and to give me advice at any time. Wishing you all the best for a very happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011[edit]The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[13] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
r&i[edit]please note the recent discussion on the subject.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Dispute resolution for Usage share of operating systems[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers". Thank you. --Jdm64 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Mediation Cabal[edit]As advised by ItsZippy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, applied to Mediation Cabal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Mediation Cabal: Request for participation[edit] Dear Professor marginalia: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems. Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort. If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, thehistorian10, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Appreciation[edit]I don't know that you were ever shown appreciation or recognition for your thorough efforts to clean up plagiarism and POV-pushing in Creation myth, with all the mucking about with "cosmogony" and "myth" terminology. Anyway, I found myself revisiting some of the 2010 and 2011 discussions in the archives and recalled you taking out time to extensively comb through the article. Your efforts are much appreciated. John Shandy` • talk 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Steve Austin (creationist) merger proposal[edit]You stated that "He's not addressed in the ICR article", implicitly objecting to the proposal. However, as I have since pointed out, he is mentioned in Institute for Creation Research#History ("...with Geologist Stephen A. Austin, working as an "off and on" visiting scientist until taking a full staff position in 1979, single-handedly conducting most of its non-literary research."). I would therefore appreciate if you could clarify your views on the proposal, in light of this new information. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Criteria for a scientist[edit]Hi! When editors want to keep certain people or their credentials out of articles, they insist a "scientist" must be lettered in the subject at issue and must be currently publishing in that field. Scott's PhD is in anthropology; I'm unaware of any actual research she's published in peer-reviewed journals in anthropology or evolution or biology or anything else. (This, imo, doesn't count.) Nevertheless, I believe she is a qualified professional at NCSE. I'm quibbling because I get annoyed with doorkeepers who have double standards; you may not be one, but I've run across this often. Take Dembski, for example, who WP will not call a mathematician. I explained on the article talk page that I wasn't thinking of providing a voice in unison from the scientific community, but the various responses, which is why I started out with, "Within the scientific community, reaction has varied from quick dismissal to sarcastic rebuttal to constructive public education." Now that I've found the deleted text, I see you are aiming for a consensual voice. This is not a sticking point with me, despite my druthers. I'm short on time; if you have time to reinsert that into the article, I'd be grateful. Yopienso (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi-- I've added a few comments to the talkpage for this article, and invite you to take a look. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Just a note[edit]Greetings. Drop me an email if you need access to Human evolutionary genomics: ethical and interpretive issues. Cheers. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Arbitration Committee Review[edit]Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence. The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:
Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest. For the Arbitration Committee Mlpearc (powwow) 16:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Dispute resolution survey[edit]
Excuse me good sir[edit]But could you tell me how to deal with this individual AndytheGrump who follows my every contribution and even deletes my talk page entries on pages not even relating to the topics that initially brought him and I into a confrontation. Thank you. RhymeNero (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way. Thank you for your time, Signature needed[edit]I like your comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but you hit ` instead of ~ for the signature. I know you'll see that in due course, but I thought I would alert you (no need for a reply). Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you![edit]
Clarification[edit]Hi. This may be unwise but I was just wondering if you would clarify this sentence you wrote as part of a comment on a recent arbitration process here:
It's wonderfully articulated but to whom are you referring? Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Mediation Case Comment[edit]A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not. Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details). Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics[edit]Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Hello, Why did you revert my contribution on Abington School District v. Schempp? Thanks ModelUN (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Assbaggery, and your recognition thereof[edit]What, ye doubt the assbaggery thereunto attested?!??! 65.111.186.65 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC) December 2013[edit]
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC) |
