User talk:Usenetpostsdotcom

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Usenetpostsdotcom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Jason Gastrich 09:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Puppet (this time) (probably)

If this is indeed THE Uncle Davey, then this particular time Gastrich is not guilty of Sock Puppetry.

Davey is there to protect Gastrich from the consequences of his actions and to feed his megalomania. Davey is around pretending to toady to Gastrich, but is in fact not only not a puppet, but the opposite of a puppet.

Harvestdancer 16:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that, Harvestdancer.

You too, being someone who publicises private correspondence, are also the opposite of a puppet. I never saw a puppet who did that.

Tell me, when the Age of Aquarius is with us, will we all be able to stamp on other people's confidences, or will it continue just to be zero-integrity persons who do that?

And the reason I haven't don't a userpage - to answer all the people on that debate who thought that was somehow prima facie evidence against me being a real human being - is that I am short of time, to learn all the niceties of this system. No doubt I'll get to it. In the meantime, if anyone is clever enough to figure out what "usenetpostsdotcom" signifies, they will find out all that they need to about my person. Uncle Davey 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the Age of Aquarius? Sounds rather Pagan. --Malthusian (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is pagan. Harvestdancer is a self-confessed practising Witch, so he is an authority about it. I read that it is supposed to be going on right now, but I have no knowledge of what it entails. Uncle Davey 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Read about it in Wikipedia Astrology. Harvestdancer 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Uncle Davey, here to make sure that if Gastrich's behavior is called to question, Davey will sheild Gastrich from the moral of the experience. Nope, nothing to learn about how actions have consequences - it really was one big conspiracy of non-believers. You are more responsible for Gastrich thinking he could get away with his POV pushing at Wikipedia than anybody else I know, because you fed his ego every time he offended others.

If he offends others, and they take offense, you tell him they took offense because they hate Jesus and Jason and not to worry about it. You make sure he doesn't grow as long as he listens to you.

I read the correspondence between the pair of you which he publicised, and whilst you appeared sincere at the start of it, you failed to address all the things he brought up, and in the end you lost more face than he did by publicising it. It is my opinion that you and the rest of Zazu's gang know very well that he is an worthwhile target, as he is very straightforward and doesn't worry about not offending people as long as the message gets out, and he is likely to be used by God. That's why you follow him with your contrived propaganda kit about him all around the internet, getting on his back over every little thing he does. If you were sure he were really offensive, then surely you would be hapy to let him get on with alienating people from the gospel - or are you really a Christian in disguise only pretending to be a Wiccan and really trying your best to curb people who might put people off believing the gospel?--Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't understand my motive? I care about religion, not just my religion. I do try to assist others in actually following their own faith, which is why I tried to help Gastrich but cannot help you. You don't qualify.

You think my not keeping my correspondence under a bushel basket makes me look bad? I'm not the one who insists that any and every criticism be delted post haste in an effort to appear stainless.

It's not about Gastrich me objecting to Gastrich getting the message out. It's about me objecting to Gastrich NOT getting the message out. He's not getting the message out, and every time his own behavior turns people off, you quickly assure him that it's their fault, not his, that his offenses offended them.

You do far more harm to Gastrich than his critics ever could.

As a Wiccan, I am compelled to be a healer when I can, which is why I tried to attend to Gastrich. That takes faith, to administer to people of other faiths without trying to convert them. That takes belief, something alien to you.

By the way, there is no Cabal. Harvestdancer 05:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to try to manipulate me, at least don't insult my intelligence by being so transparent about it. "You do far more harm to Gastrich than his critics ever could" yeah, right. If you thought so, you would be happy. Try to be sincere one time.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sincere. If I were trying to manipulate you, I wouldn't be so obvious. I'm just telling it like it is - you prod JG by telling him that when people are offended by his methods (not his message) that they are really offended by his message and that they hate Jesus and Jason. It's simply not true. You tell him the lie that puffs up his ego. You know it too - I'm just stating it outright where Jason could possibly see it. You're pretty clever, I'll grant that.

I'm not "out to get" Gastrich. That's another lie. I'm actually out to help him do for real what he thinks he's doing. You're keeping him from being the missionary he wants to be with your lies, to the point where he is now blinded by hubris - a hubris you contributed to. What is your real game? Harvestdancer 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you two put your handbags away? Some of us are trying to build an encyclopaedia here. --Malthusian (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, OK. But note how the Wiccan does his utmost to drive a wedge between friends by making out I'm trying to pull Jason's strings.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, revealing someone's real name on Wikipedia is also considered a violation. Harvestdancer 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll try to remember that.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you can do it again? Harvestdancer 05:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you give me that lip, matey.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty hurts? Harvestdancer 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must do you, since you cannot even sign you work. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out what happens if you use the incorrect number of tildes. Harvestdancer 23:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome of sorts

Regarding the RfC, evidence isn't signed.

On that theme, sorry I thought you were a sockpuppet. Although I don't agree with what you said on the RfC, and I'm still disturbed by your Usenet comments, you do at least seem a bit saner than Gastrich, and maybe, unlike him, you'll be capable of checking your POV (point of view) and outside disputes at the door. Read his RfC, and learn from his mistakes. If you can't keep your beliefs from affecting your editing, then your best bet is to avoid religion-related articles altogether. There are hundreds of thousands of others.

One editing tip to start off with: sign your name with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you'd rather appear as 'Uncle Davey' rather than 'Usenetpostsdotcom', then go to 'my preferences' at the top of every page, and change the 'Nickname' field to something like this: [[User:Usenetpostsdotcom|Uncle Davey]]. That particular one will make your signature appear as Uncle Davey, which still links to your normal user page. --Malthusian (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the advice. I will try to implement it. I don't know why my sig is black when everyone elses is blue, though. Uncle Davey 09:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Either you're writing your sig out longhand instead of using the four tildes ~~~~, or your 'nickname' in 'my preferences' is set to plain 'Uncle Davey', instead of [[User:Usenetpostsdotcom|Uncle Davey]]. The latter uses your name as a 'piped link' to your user page, and like any wikilink, that makes it appear blue. --Malthusian (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to put the following into the nickname section [[User:Usenetpostsdotcom|Uncle Davey]] [[User talk:Usenetpostsdotcom|(Talk)]] you will get a signature as followed Uncle Davey (Talk) when you sign with the four tildes ~~~~. David D. (Talk) 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both David Day and Malthusian for that advice - if it works then it will show up now, I dare say. Uncle Davey (Talk) 10:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Regarding this: [1] Please take the time to read and learn WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I know I was near the knuckle, but is it OK for her to have said "he's doing this petty crap ...." - wasn't that a personal attack? Was that civil? Yes, two wrongs don't make a right, but I hope you admonish both sides the same. Uncle Davey 09:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll be here all week if you start playing the "He said" "Well she said" game. Gastrich has been, and it hasn't got him anywhere. Whatever you do on Usenet, don't fight his battles here, they're losing ones. --Malthusian (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your friendly advice. In essence, I am not so interested in winning or losing battles, and more in speaking the Truth.

I am not keen on the initiative that we have here, BTW. Having prayed about it I would be just as happy if we withdrew. If not, then this resource, which is valued by people all over the world, will be harmed and everyone will make sure it is seen as all our fault. I am hoping that somneone will start a separate wiki project where we can talk about Christian themes under our own control, without getting into all the overspill from Usenet battles and infidelguy.com battles that we have got into here.

I would rather negotiate an exit pact whereby if Warrior Scribe and his group either stop posting or post edits in unrelated issues, where we have not appeared then I will do my best to see that our Group follows suit.

If not, then I can tell you from history that the energy and time that both these groups have when fighting each other could be very detrimental, even to a project this size. And I don't think the project deserves to become the battleground for this.

We will always speak the Truth, they will always counter with what they believe is the truth, and you simply cannot get a more stalemate situation than when this happens, unless it is diffused somehow. Uncle Davey 09:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Davey you don't understand. If your supposed usenet foes did not change your edits others would. You cannot edit with POV, as Jason has been doing, and expect them to survive. So stop looking for fights. Jason knows exactly what he is doing and i'm sure he is not surprised by the results. David D. (Talk) 09:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground, so using phrases like 'withdrawal' and 'negotiating an exit pact' are somewhat inappropriate. There will be no compromise between fundamentalist points of view and Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Now if atheists were vandalizing and otherwise disrupting Wikipedia to the same degree as Gastrich, then there might be need for mediation. But this RfC has been open for several days, Gastrich (and to a lesser extent Itake) have continuously claimed that their opponents are the POV warriors and not them, but they have been utterly unable to provide any evidence of doing so to the degree necessary to sustain an RfC of their own, and the consensus of the community (seen by those endorsing the Outside and Inside Views with their signatures) is overwhelmingly that Gastrich is a lone windmill-tilter and not one side in a war. --Malthusian (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it always have to be "we?" You take umbrage when people call you a "sycophant" yet you say you don't want to be here. Do you do everything he tells you to do? If you don't want to be here, leave. Go do something else. There already are Christian Wikis. Further, you two could start your own. The software that runs this one is freely available. I have a copy myself and it's not all that hard to set up.

There is no "Warrior Scribe and his group." There are upwards of four whole people here who know what you mean by "Usenet battles and infidelguy.com battles" (and that's counting you and Gastrich). Maybe a staggering number of two or three more have a familiarity with one or both incidents. Maybe. On the other hand, there are well over two dozen names on the RfC. That should tell you something.

Not to mention, in both cases of the "battles" you bring up, Gastrich was the one who went into an atheist community, knowing it was an atheist community. Going into an atheist community swinging a Bible is to be deliberately trying to provoke a fight. The results were as inevitable as the sun rising in the East. If you don't like that there's fall out from those fights, ask him why he started them.

There's nothing to "negotiate." The rules here are the rules here. You're going to have to face up to the fact that Gastrich made these people mad. He broke their rules. It's not Dave Horn behind the curtains pushing the buttons and levers. The rules of this community predate you, they predate Gastrich, they predate me, they predate Dave. They're also binding on all of us if we want to stick around. That's how it works. If there's anything to "negotiate" it's in the sense of "to succeed in going over or coping with." That is, learning the rules and conventions and how to work within them. Otherwise, go download the wiki software and start one of your own.

There's no one to "negotiate" with. There is no cabal. If you think anybody's giving me orders, you got another think coming. I definitely don't give orders. The whole idea of "followers" creeps me out. If I had a "group" and they wanted "orders," the only one I'd give is "get the hell outta here you freaks!"

And, really, let's can the overblown sense of importance shall we? If this did become some knock-down, drag-out, Usenet style fight, they'd just bounce us all and say to each other "whew, glad that's over" and get back to what they were doing. The Wiki would go on. Not you, nor Gastrich, nor I, nor Horn are that important. It's time for a reality check.

Finally, what does "the initiative that we have here" mean? Contributing is quite obviously welcomed here. But an "initiative" is going to result in a backlash. Or more correctly has resulted in a backlash. When something doesn't work, the solution is rarely "do more."

Mark K. Bilbo 04:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

To upload images to Wikipedia, simply click 'Upload file' on the left hand side of every page. Make sure that what you upload is appropriately licensed or it will be deleted. Wikipedia:Images has a good background, more information on licensing can be found at here, and the picture tutorial is a good place to start on how to incorporate them in articles. As for adding new information about fish, be bold. The worst that can happen after any edit is that it gets reverted. Certainly the fact that something is on an external website (if that's what 'Fishbase' is) shouldn't prevent you from adding it to Wikipedia. Being bold also goes for correcting something that's already there if you think it's wrong, but leave an appropriate edit summary and start a discussion on the talk page if your reasoning is too long to fit. --Malthusian (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It would help me if you could look at my first attempt at an article from scratch [2]] and give me the low down on how to make it more classy.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, a smaller image should be used to illustrate the page. My preference would be for a thumbnail on the right with a caption, like this:

This was generated with the following code: [[Image:Pineapplepleco.png|thumb|right|I am a fish]]. Just copy and paste that, using an appropriate caption. If someone clicks on it they can see the high-res version.

Your text is generally good, but you've included a few references to yourself, something that should not be done in an encyclopaedia article. E.g. "one of my pair", "to my knowledge", and especially your signature. Never sign articles. Every article should look as if anyone could have written it, even when there's actually only one editor.

Also think about wikilinking some words by surrounding them with [[double square brackets]]. Wikipedia:Build_the_web has a good way of describing this - link upwards to broader concepts like 'Fish' and 'Amazon', and sideways to things that relate to it like 'pineapple'. Don't just randomly wikilink words.

You might also want to look at another fish article (e.g. Goldfish) and note the 'infobox' on the side. The infobox is a standard template for basic information for all animals. If you go to 'edit' for that page, right at the top you should see the code for the infobox, and you could copy and paste that into your own article, changing all the names and the picture. That would in fact remove the need to fiddle with the placement of your own image - the infobox would take care of that. Template code can be annoying, so feel free to leave that bit for someone else.

I'm willing to have a go at making the above changes myself if you want, but thought you might like to try these ideas out first. --Malthusian (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudorinelepis

Excellent start. I think you'll find a lot of people willing to help you now, plus be a lot more friendly. Let me know if you have problems with templates or editing style. It took mne a while to figure out a lot of the formatting tricks. David D. (Talk) 17:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. And thanks to Malthusian, since between the two of you you have got me past the initial hurdles. And I could swear that fish on the photo was looking over my shoulder egging me on as well, as I keep them in the office now. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. --Malthusian (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, how do I get anti-smoking and anti drugs templates? Is there a list of templates anywhere? Is there an accountants' template? TIA--Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Job done. Wikipedia:Userbox has an index of userboxes for future reference. Since 'no smoking' isn't the same as 'anti-smoking' I 'subst'ed your 'no smoking' box: that is, instead of entering {{User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/User non-smoker}} I entered {{subst:user_non-smoker}}, replacing it with the raw code. This means it won't be changed if the central Template:User_non-smoker is changed, but you can change the text in the box to what you like. There doesn't seem to be an accountancy userbox - perhaps you could create your own? --Malthusian (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's a stronger anti-drugs template if you'd prefer that: {{user Drug-opposed}} --Malthusian (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic, thanks Malthusian. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've gotten off to a fantastic start with this article. One concern that I have: please review WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Basically, every fact on wikipedia has to be available elsewhere in a reputable source - and cannot derive from, for example, your experience in owning one of these fish.

For example, in the earliest version of the article you wrote that you personally are not aware of cases of spawning in captivity. This version says that spawning in captivity has not been reliably reported. The only way wikipedia can say this is if there is a reliable reference -- see WP:RS - that says that spawning in captivity has not been reported. If you have not read of any cases of spawning in captivity, but also have not seen a reliable source saying that no reliable reports of spawning in captivity exist, that sentence ought to be deleted.

When thinking of how to expand the article, I'd suggest inserting citations for every fact listed. This does not necessarily mean inserting a link after each fact - inserting a "references" section at the bottom would suffice. Thank you, --Pierremenard 03:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you are saying. All places I ever wrote on fish till now they pretty much disqualified articles if they were written by someone who had not kept the fish themselves and only rehashed other sources. I don't really see a great deal of sense in just rehashing sources, it is only plagiarism if you do not add something from yourself. If we take this to its logical conclusion, then we would say that anybody who places their own photographs in articles, as I did, is providing something original, and that the only way it can be verified is if that photo came from someone else's website or book about it - which of course would mean being in all likelihood not in the PD.

No, it's not "plagiarism." It's "creating an encyclopedia." No encyclopedia does "original work." They summarize existing bodies of knowledge. Similarly, dictionaries report on current word usage, they don't create new words. Mark K. Bilbo 13:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about checks and balances and keeping a style that is impersonal and not anecdotal, but what is the sense in deterring people who are knowledgeable about something in their own right, and who can do more than simply restate what is on Fishbase?

You say, you have not seen a reliable source saying that no reports of spawning in captivity exist. This is philosophically speaking like asking somebody to prove a negative assertion. In order to change the tone of my words from "from the best of my knowledge" (which, I hasten to remind you, may be unencyclopedic in style but is a proviso often essential to the maintaining of intellectual integrity, bearing in mind that articles are automatically traced to author whether someone signs them or not) to a bald assertion, obviously I had to do more research and the arguments are that neither [3] nor [4], nor indeed [5], to name the three most reputable databases, have any such reports. Neither was their any google image under the search terms of adults with eggs or fry or in a spawning position. But why to mention that? My assumption is that other users of wikipedia can google for images in vain or search for "pseudorinelepis spawning" in Google as well as I can.

I have not read every aquarist magazine in every country, which is what it would take to state for sure there has been no reporting, but I make the fair assumption that if it were reported, then news of it would have arrived at one of those places, and if not, then someone who is able to PROVE THE POSITIVE assertion, that there has been, will reference it when they come here and contradict my statement. Until then, it's perfectly fair to say there are no such reports and it should not be deleted, in my view.

In any event, I notice that in the main you liked my article, so thank you for that. What is your response to those arguments? I am still trying to work out what the philosophy is here, because I am finding in in some ways rather counterintuitive. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR has the full explanation, but to summarise: we're an encyclopaedia. We need to know that everything here is true, and anyone who reads it needs to know that everything is true, but on the other hand we're incapable of the fact-checking and peer review process that, say, an academic journal on fish does. That means we can write an article using Professor Joe Bloggs' article in a reputable journal as a reference, but if Prof. Bloggs comes here and writes a new article himself, we have to delete it until he gets it published in that journal.

So yes, basically what we're doing is writing what other people have already written. That's what an encyclopaedia does: takes knowledge that is already out there, collates it, organises it and maybe explains it a bit better. And that's not plagiarism any more than my undergraduate essays are (which haven't got a single original thought in them, mainly because I'd be marked down for it). Plagiarism means writing what other people have already written but passing it off as one's own work. --Malthusian (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation --Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Placing your own images is OK. See the section "Original Images" over at WP:NOR.

2. If the facts are that neither of the three sources have reported spawning in captivity, the sentence ought to be redone as something like "Neither Source1 nor Source2 nor Source3 have found any reliable reports in captivity." Also, if there is a reliable source that says these three sources are the three most reputable databases, then you can include that in there as well.

3. In answer to your arguments: an encyclopedia is a place that only collects knowledge available elsewhere. This isn't plagiarism; plagiarism would be if we copied some source word for word or claimed that the information originates with us. A summary is not plagiarism.

4. Further, we have no way of determining who is an expert. We have no way of determining who is qualified to add original research. And we have a huge number of vandals that delight in adding false information to articles. If we allowed this, then many wikipedia articles would not be accurate at all.

5. Finally, I'll note that even if you disagree with the policy, you ought to follow it when editing articles: it is a standard that all wikipedia users are expected to follow. If you wish to change the policy, note that each of the pages I cited above -- WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS -- has a talk page. You are free to go there and propose changes to the policy that you feel would improve the encyclopedia. --Pierremenard 16:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо за время и за выяснения. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monospecific

Hi Usenetpostsdotcom!

You recently created an article called Monospecific, nice work! However, in my opinion, it looks similar to a dictionary article. While those are often useful and contain useful information, there is a sister wiki called Wiktionary which deals specifically with dictionary articles. So instead, I've tagged the page with {{move to wiktionary}}, and in some time, it will be moved. If you have any concerns or if I'm wrong, feel free to talk to me at my talk page! Kareeser|^Talk! 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem stems from the fact that "monospecific" is an adjective, whereas most of the encyclopedia entries are nouns.

Can there be an encyclopedia entry for an adjective like "monospecific", or are articles explaining what an adjective means always going to look a bit dictionary-ish?

What is the thinking of my other Wikicoaches who have written here, is Kareeser correct, or not? --Uncle Davey (Talk) 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a definition so it would more properly be in the Wikitionary. That doesn't "disappear" it. That just means you link to it with an Interwikimedia link.Mark K. Bilbo 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mark, I'll need a while to get my head around that one. From what I can see, I first need to get a log-in to Wiktionary, as it doesn't recognise my cookie, then put the entry in there, and then refer across to it with one of those boxes. It doesn't automatically copy content to the other project, right?--Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree it does look like a dictionary entry. These things can work out several ways.

The proposed move to a dictionary is one.
Another possible solution is to redirect to an article that uses the term. If you cannot find such an article (i just checked and there is nothing obvious) then the information could be merged into a topical article (a section of taxonomy?) and then redirect this page to that location.
Another possability is to expand the article. In this case it would be interesting to give examples.
Also you should consider that this term could have other meanings that may require a disambiguation type page. A few examples would be"monospecific antibodies", "monospecific antivenom" or a "monospecific stand of trees". I got these examples from a google search, the last example does not imply that the trees are monospecific but they are a monoculture.

My preference would be to merge into taxonomy or expand the article with examples of the usage. If you want to redirect to taxonomy use the following #redirect [[taxonomy]] on this page. Thereafter any time some one links to monospecific is will redirect to the explanation in taxonomy. I hope this helps. David D. (Talk) 17:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, David. The answer may be to do the wiktionary entry based on the entry as it is now, and then work to a larger article here, which would have headings for each of the disambiguations, I started off with taxonomy, and then medical and the waste-management related meanings could be added in, and I think I can make a decent readable article out of that, although one that would need someone with more knowledge to come and add to it.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I've still got coaches, maybe I can take advantage of your patience by the way and ask if my edit of the Johnny Logan (singer) article was OK? --Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of changes. Of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. i did remove one sentence that appeared to be your own POV. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for your recent support on Jonathan Skinner (AfD)! Abbyemery 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Uncle Davey (Talk) 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims against me

How dare you claim I am on a anti-Christian agenda. If you weren't lazy and cared to click on the history of the TRACS page you could have noticed I created it. Arbusto 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to see your name appear time and again whenever a Christian article is up for deletion, and therefore I do dare to say so, and I also have been through your contribs and I see that the theme recurs quite frequently, although I see you do other things also, of presumably good use.

By the way, I only made one claim, and therefore your saying above "claims" in the plural is untrue. Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbusto needs to realize that simply creating a web page for TRACS doesn't mean a hill of beans. In fact, it can mean just the opposite of what he is alleging it means. If you Google "Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools",[6], its Wikipedia entry is listed 3rd. All we can ascertain by Arbusto creating this entry and putting his spin on TRACS is that he wanted people to know his opinion on TRACS; which doesn't look very favorable or accurate. This has been point out by User:Pollinator here.[7] He either misrepresented some information or simply lied, saying they lost their accrediting power in 1991, when they didn't.

He said, "In 1991, TRACS' recognition was suspended by the government due to questionable practices." and pointed to this link [8]. Well, this link says nothing of the sort. --No Jobs 06:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monospecificity

Hey, good job. Happy to see the PROD managed to give it a bump in the right direction. :) cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Uncle Davey (Talk) 19:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside

It is difficult to believe that you were unaware that your behaviour was inappropriate on Meta. In fact, you continued to engage in it as an anon IP using multiple ISPs after your account was indef blocked on Meta for this userpage vandalism by another admin. I have no reason to believe you were acting in other than a premeditated and vandalistic manner, rather than any false claim to be attempting to enforce policy as you understood it. - Amgine 05:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Are you talking to me, or is this something you've sent to a whole bunch of people? Do you have a link to what you are referring to? I haven't vandalised anything, and I didn't have an account on Meta. Come to think of it, I don't even know what Meta is. (Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

- Time passes. Either you will have the goodness to back up your assertions or to withdraw them. (Uncle Davey (Talk) 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have replied on my talk page. - Amgine 18:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted material by me on User: Nascentatheist 's talk page

The following paragraphs were immediately consigned to history by Nascentatheist, in so doing he proved the exact same points I was making. His ability to attack and make libellous statements about me is not a waste of wiki resources, but attempts by me to defend myself against what he said become a waste of resources, and I am the bad guy for not being civil. Nevertheless, I can show the material on my own talk page, and here it is.

- - You see, this is precisely what you do - you pull some stunt like this, usually involving threats as right now, just to get the last word, and then afterwards when people don't bother to write to you, you claim that you made arguments that could not be countered. If you have the right to make comments about me that I am motivated by hate on a forum like this, which is not true and also libellous, then I have the right to defend myself as allowing such a right is a defence against the charge of libel in case law. Libelling someone and then denying that they have any right to reply, as you have just done here, is out and out libellous and is a civil tort in Anglo Saxon law. It is simply a question of the law, and not the rules of a game you try to make up as you go along. Your pretended piety in the matter of wikipedia's rules would be more convincing if they were not being cynically used by you as the means to an end, which can be seen by the fact that you chase people all over the internet. You were simply not interested in the rules of the community when vandalising my channel page in youtube, but know here you play the ideal user. Delete away. I do not care, as you cannot delete it from the history and those who need it will find it. I say it mainly for their ears so that they get an ide what they are dealing with and what kind of neutral POV one can expect from your motions to delete. Uncle Davey (Talk) 22:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To see the rest of what he squelched and why, refer to the history in his talk page. Uncle Davey (Talk) 20:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And these paragraphs as well:

You dismiss my deductions, the effect of which was to establish your identity as the same as that of WarriorScribe with a certainty of about 99%, as far fetched, but look at the illogical way you try to twist my routine occasional perusal of your on-line activity into some kind of proof that one User is the same as another. There are a hundred and one reasons why a person might not keep up a discussion, and many different things other than Jason that can remind me to look you up occasionally. When we were having our protracted discussions on youtube comments areas not long ago, we didn't speak about him that much. But I happen to note you are on his case again. YOU think that Creashin is Jason, but that's your view and your concern. I'm not here to comment on whether he is or he isn't, because why would I know anything about that?

As ever, you use threats in order to squelch the freedom to reply to what you say. It is your standard modus operandi. And for your information I do not hate you. I just wish for your own sake as well as that of your victims that you would get this tendency of yours to bully people under control. Thank you. Uncle Davey (Talk) 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nascentatheist

Dear Uncle Davey,

I see you know Nascentatheist. Ever since I disagreed with him about the Kearny Soccer link on the Kearny High School (San Diego) article, he has been going to great lengths to accuse me of being a sock puppet of Jason Gastrich. Could you consider posting on his talk page and asking him to stop? I've approached him, but he doesn't seem to care what I say. He has even went so far as to put a boiler plate on my user page, accusing me of being a sock puppet! So, I'm following the correct protocol by approaching him, then asking another user to approach him on his talk page. Thanks in advance for your consideration, Uncle Davey. --Creashin 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would do so if it were likely to make him stop, but if you knew him like I know him (we go back a long way)you would understand that if I do that, he's only going to think you are Dr Gastrich all the more.

If you think I'm User:Nascentatheist

An interesting accusation then you should submit a request for check user. But apparently you forgot I'm not an atheist at all. By the way I do not have a youtube account with which to make any comments at all. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were him at the outset, afterwards I changed my mind. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that when these discussions blossom, you are rarely far away. I take it you have managed to read through book seven of Harry Potter by now and are looking around for something else to do? Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So just because you insinuated, I'll follow the trail that led me to here. 1 - I was checking on the list of probably Gastrich sock puppets because I sincerely believe that several of them are actually Bible John and that Gastrich got unfairly blamed. 2 - I saw a new name, User:Creashin. 3 - I saw it was User:Nascentatheist making the accusation, and of course every time Gastrich is in trouble you are rarely far away. 4 - I read the exchange between you and Nascentatheist on his talk page and found the YouTube link. 5 - I commented on it here that if you believe the garbage you write you would actually put up an RFCU on the two of us. 6 - You blather on about how I'm so close to the whole situation. Nope, the Cabal didn't keep me informed. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Jason, whatever. Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich

You probably didn't notice, and Gastrich definitely didn't. When I asked Gastrich if he woudl be willing to have a mentor in his latest bid for reenstatement, I was trying to find a way to help him. He seemed like he might possibly be willing, but before anything could be arranged, people other than myself decided he should remain banned.

Therefore he retailated against them and me on his stolen-name newsgroup. You should control your puppet better and point out to him that I was his only advocate (other than his sock puppets) on the reenstatement issue. I was trying to find a way that he could possibly get the community to accept him, so he engages in more offsite attacks against them and me.

You really should learn to control your pets. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what you are talking about, but I see from your use of language that you are once again trying to promote this idea you have dreamed up and tried to promote before that I somehow manipulate Jason into doing these things. I can only assume you are trying to cause some kind of division between Christians by speculating on which of them lead the other. For the avoidance of doubt, neither I nor Jason manipulate each other. If one Christian needs something from another generally it is sufficient to ask for it directly, and we do what we can for each other. Nevertheless, the fact that you feel the need to put it in terms of some people being servile to or manipulated by others, then I'm afraid that only speaks to your own world outlook. The reason you started practising the occult in the first place was, I have no doubt, fuelled by a desire to manipulate and lead (or rather, mislead) others. Hence you continually obsess on that point. Nevertheless, as the bard says "'tis the strumpet's plague, to beguile many and be beguiled by one", and however many you have manipulated or failed to manipulate with your dark arts, you are still a mere camp follower, with the emphasis on "camp", behind your good buddy "Nascentatheist". But you don't have his style, I'm afraid, and really only qualify as an electronic kicktoy for on-line fundamentalists.Uncle Davey (Talk) 20:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all pull in our claws and be cool, before the situation escalates any further. But let's also understand, Uncle Davey, that you are responsible in no small way for what we've seen in the last few days and, especially, what we see at the Google Group [9] [10] [11]. Your "brother" is having a severe episode for which he bears responsibility for himself - he is an adult, after all; but you certainly played a part in aggravating it with your unproven accusations. I have to say that I am somewhat amazed that you still haven't figured out who from whom during the YouTube discussions or subsequent to them, but regardless, Jason would not have behaved as he did if it wasn't for you and your passing of your unproven assertions. Clearly, you do seem to pull his strings and what Harvestdancer has said cannot be dismissed so blithely. Whatever I have come to think of Jason Gastrich in the fairly short time that I have had to encounter him, he is chronologically young and psychologically much younger. You are older, you appear to be a bit more intelligent, if not much more mature, you're at least moderately more successful and, theoretically, at least, you should know better. You told Jason that I was someone else - someone you both hate. You not only failed to prove your accusations, but you deleted a number of disproofs that I provided and dismissed or scoffed at the rest. You were left with no evidence, but you made the accusations, anyway and when that didn't satisfy you, you passed those on to someone I am sure you know has some issues with maturity - Jason Gastrich. Anyone with any clue about basic psychology could have predicted the results. As simple-minded as Jason is, it was all that he needed.
Jason brought you here as a meatpuppet, and I've read enough of your past arguments with others to know that you have been thought of as the lapdog for him; but my reading has been different. I agree with Harvestdancer. I believe that it's been you pulling the strings all along. I wonder if you're proud of yourself. Jason was never a match for me and it's certain he'd never pass muster with site administration and be allowed back in because of his antics, as I have described in detail. But if it hadn't been for you and your baseless and false accusations, there might have been some hope to reach him. My comments were intended to get him to think about what is going on. They may have succeeded or failed, but your accusations made it effectively impossible, because he clearly looks up to you, and the two of you clearly hate WarriorScribe, Harvestdancer, and atheists, agnostics, and religionists other than Christians, in general. You had a responsibility to your "brother," who looks up to you, and you blew it.
I'd suggest to you that you have a lot to think about and considerable for which you need to make amends, but we already know that I'll be whistling in the wind, don't we? You're not rational. You believe things because they are convenient for you, you can't fathom or understand alternatives, or because you want to believe them. There's very little that you believe that you can actually show to be true, so you create this psychological wall for yourself and declare that you have "no burden of proof." You'll complain that you made that statement with respect to evidence for God, but I submit to you that you extrapolate that to all other areas of your life and experience at varying levels. There isn't anything that you truly believe - about God or anybody - because you can actually prove anything. You're a superficial thinker who, while spouting occasionally speeches and quoting the Bard, really don't like to give too much contemplative thought to anything, especially if it leads to possible conclusions that you can't bear. I'd be sad for you because of what that takes away from you, except that your behavior over the past several years in so many forums makes it clear to me that there's something about you that, I don't know, makes it all moot.
Regardless, you manipulated the situation. Whether you did so consciously or not, you helped create a more hostile environment than was really necessary under the circumstances. I bear my own responsibility, but I can hold my head up because I was honest, truthful, direct, had good intentions, and had a desire to defend the integrity of the Project, through and through. I certainly don't always get it right [12] [13], but I don't take advantage of younger people and tell them things that I know I can't prove, knowing full well that it will antagonize and escalate the situation. I am interested in the expansion and dissemination of useful, human knowledge. All you're out for is yourself and your own entertainment. You'll complain that this is something others have said. Okay, maybe we're all sock-puppets...or maybe there's something to what we're saying.
I've spent far too much time involved in this - much more than I ever intended. What I have written above is the truth and from the heart. You were wrong, and now we're seeing some of the results. You can duck the responsibility, if you like. I fully expect that you will find some way to justify your part in all of this, even to the point of saying to yourself, "oh, well, I'm forgiven and going to Heaven, anyway." As I alluded above, I hope you're proud of yourself; and it wouldn't surprise me if you are. That just makes it all the more sad. I've tried to reason with you, here, just as I tried with Jason. It's almost certain that it will be futile, and so I am done with you. The damage to your reputation was done by you and, like Jason, as much as you'll try to blame others, you have no one to blame but yourself - Nascentatheist 21:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want me to be the bad guy in all of this. Go on, then, if it makes you happy, Zazu. Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will simply state that I do not hate you or any of your alter egos. I think they need to be stood up to, but that doesn't involve hate on my part. It was you that refused to break bread with me, not me with you. My invitation to you remains open, so don't ascribe the hate to my side.Uncle Davey (Talk) 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating accusations, since of all the parties involved, only Gastrich is known for actually engaging in the dark arts. After all, only one of us has ever acted to violate the free will of others, which is a definition of dark arts among those who know what they are talking about. You will disagree with the definition, which proves a point.

However, if I am a kicktoy, why is it that fundimentalists like User:Jason Gastrich and User_talk:Bible John are hard banned and I'm not? I do not know why you so manipulate Gastrich. I really wish I did because if he was free to do what he thinks he is doing he could do a lot of good for the world. Instead every time he mis-steps you step in and tell him that all the criticism he earns is because people hate him, hate his message, hate his religion, hate his god, etc. And every time you tell him that you are feeding Gastrich's ego, preventing him from learning from his mistakes, and being quite less than honest.

I have been honest the whole time with regards to this whole issue. Knowing that Gastrich believes in "Once Saved Always Saved" you encouraged him in misbehavior, the same misbehavior that got him banned from all Wiki projects in all languages. You have been an enabler, perhaps even a codependent] to someone addicted to wrongdoing. I see it when I try to council those who are having difficulties - there is often someone willing to say "what he does isn't so bad". That is you. No matter what you find a way to excuse the behavior.

As Gastrich goes down in flames you now try to say it was all one big conspiracy with secret and open Cabals conspiring against him. "Camp" and "camp follower" indeed. That is just one more way you are trying to shield him from recognizing that these are the consequences of his actions. Yes, you are a manipulator, and I see that while trying to help others. Of course, in true Davey fashion you accuse me of your faults, even going so far as to suggest that my religious faith is based on trying to manipulate others as you wish to do. Perhaps you are trying to convince Gastrich, or perhaps you are trying to convince yourself, that the ONLY person here who was trying to be his advocate isn't me but is the one fanning the fires. Are you writing to convince Gastrich or yourself? Are you consciously or unconsciously manipulating him?

As someone who does religious counciling, in addition to trying to help those who are confused, like Gastrich, I learned to recognize those who are deliberately acting in a wrong manner. Gastrich could be helped if you were removed from the picture. You are someone I would wash my hands of, but then I have no intention of helping you. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 23:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be threatening me, witch. I bind upon myself this day, the strong name of the Trinity. Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a minute before you posted that, you seemed to know what you are talking about. Not any more. As for your invocation, why would the trinity help someone who serves their opposition? Get thee back to thy master's abyss. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 05:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know the lorica, and you know what it is for, and you know that the triune God will surely protect me. Hence you simply wrote that last bit as if it were a piece of sulphurous bile you howked up and spat out. Uncle Davey (Talk) 16:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The god you claim only protects those who actually follow him, which is why he doesn't claim you. When I tell you to go back to the abyss, it's not a curse because I won't force you to go home - you will go there on your own. What we have here is a witch (me) arguing with a satanist (not me, but the other of the two people in this conversation). Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust a self-professing witch to confuse a Christian and a satanist. This would be libellous, of course, but libel and slander is only what could make a person lose their reputation or good name in the eyes of right-thinking people, and what right-thinking person sets any store by what a self-professed witch has to say on these things? But for the record, I love Christ and hate satan. Uncle Davey (Talk) 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you love Christ and hate Satan, why do you serve Satan and oppose Christ? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that you think "I would wash my hands of you" is a threat, and sad that I fell for the juvenile provocations of your phony binding. There was nothing in what I wrote that is any sort of threat, and you know it. You had no rebuttal other than to invoke that which you don't even believe in, in the hopes that I might write something you might later use against me.

The points that you failed to address say the most. You never commented on my saying you are a codependent personailty with regards to Gastrich and his repeated mis-steps, or that you egg him on under the guise of helping him. That was unaddressed in your "you are threatening me" reply. Instead you proved correct my assertion that you accuse others of your faults. You accused me of being a Wiccan in order to have power to manipulate others, and then you attempt a binding. Is that why you claim a faith you don't actually follow? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Laurainla234.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Laurainla234.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Poles in the United States

Given your high fluency in Polish, I am reaching out to you in regards to the History of the Poles in the United States article. It has no Polish equivalent, and any time you can spend towards translating in any capacity would be much-appreciated. I would be more than happy to help any way that I can.

Thank you! Pola.mola (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]