User talk:Duncharris/archive9

WP:CIVIL

Per WP:CIVIL I respectfully request that you refrain from describing other editors' good-faith contributions as "crap" [1]. Kappa 15:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to second Kappa's request. You have been extremely unfriendly towards me and made unwarranted attacks against me. Please stop. Bahn Mi 19:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't suppose I was referring to your particular cruft, but your contributions fall into the pointless steaming pile of crap category. Dunc|☺ 19:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is my third request now. Please stop making personal attacks against me and make a concerted effort to be civil to all other Wikipedians. If you do not believe a school (or all schools) to be important then you are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not give you the right to harass others. Bahn Mi 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This is my fourth and final request asking that you attempt to use civility and refrain from describing other editor's contributions as "crap". Your attitude here towards others you disagree with is reprehensible. Bahn Mi 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

For bravery in defending out encyclopedia in the face of abuse and vitriol, I award you this barnstar. --Neutrality^talk

For pulling no punches and never resting in the fight against insignificant and non-notable schools in Wikipedia, and for standing up to an organized, group that taunts and harasses those who disagree, I award you the Defender of the Wiki barnstar. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I

Hi Duncharris. I see that you merged GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I to GWR 6000 Class without going via the AfD process - can I ask why this was? It could well be that the result of the AfD discussion would have been merge or delete anyway, but is this not a more democratic way of going about things? Regards, CLW 18:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I am also less than happy about those changes and believe that AfD would have been the correct way to resolve a disagreement chowells 20:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Further to chowells's comment, I'll revert the merge and nominate the article for deletion myself. Then if it goes, it will be through concensus rather than a unilateral decision. CLW 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to use Afd for this. If it's a merge you're discussing, why not talk about it on the talk page? IMO, Afd is not desirable or neccessary in order to decide on a merge. Friday (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that it's not just this page at stake, there are quite a few similar pages on preserved locos that were turned into redirects because User:Duncharis didn't consider them to be notable enough chowells 21:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That was really an ugly thing you did

I've been steadily working on Human for nearly a year now. this is what it looked like before I started. It has come a long way, and I was feeling rather proud of what might end up a featured article. Your comments were therefore quite possibly the rudest experience I have had on the wikipedia. I used to have respect for you, and I hope I will again someday. Sam Spade 20:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

A Lost Cause

Dunc, I am in full agreement with you about the notability of schools in general. Some high schools, maybe, should be kept. It seems unlikely that any elementary school could possibly be worthy of an article in the Wikipedia. However, I think trying to delete schools is a lost cause. I have quit voting on AFD articles for schools. There are just too many school-inclusionists to battle against and it does not seem likely that we could prevail. I think our time could be better spent elsewhere. I am, however, still going to vote vigorously against garage bands. Keep the faith. ♠DanMS 04:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Civility request

Please do not describe me with phrases like ought to know better. Uncle Ed 22:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well you are being a very silly. That's no way for a bureaucrat to behave. And anyway, you ought to be able to take it. Dunc|☺ 23:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

dunc why does everyone keep asking you to be kinder to people yet you do not do it that is not nice Yuckfoo 03:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. They should grow thicker skins or not go around POV pushing if they are a bureaucrat! Dunc|☺ 10:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks for making the point that members who are trusted with bureaucrat rights should be held to a higher standard, but I resigned my bureaucrat rights last month. And thanks for changing "ought to know better" to "being ... silly". Uncle Ed 17:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

About Ed

I thought it best to open up rather brusquely, given his judicious patina of praising "objectivity," only to insert usual Creationist smug b.s.

I doubt I can be made to engage him further, directly, in any way. Good or grumpy, I couldn't care less, but my feelings are said (and Ed warned).

As for the work itself, my feelings are entirely beside the point: my pride will be in helping to mold a well-written, accurate article, whatever the outcome of the case itself.

Your comment wass reasonable and appreciated. --- TCoL49

Falklands

Your protection of that page was a clear abuse of power, especially since you continued editing it afterwards.

The edits were not vandalism and, while I didn't agree with them, we need to give the talk page a chance before starting dictatorial acts like the one you just did. The protection of a page should be a last resort against vandalism, not a way of avoiding other writers to express their own ideas.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The only edit I made was to copyedit one sentence. There was a revert war going on, against consensus on the talk page. I've unprotected it now so it can start again. Dunc|☺ 19:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

True, but you made edits nonetheless... you shouldn't have done it, even if it policy was on your side. Would've been smarter to express your opinion on WP:ANI, since discussions were being held and a 24hr protection was proposed. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There was a content dispute, which you were a participant in, but you treated edits you disagreed with as vandalism, by use of the rollback to your preferred version, and by the caption you chose in protecting on that version. Duncharris, I really object to being treated as a vandal. I encourage you to read the comments by other editors on WP:AN/I regarding this. Jonathunder 01:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Responding here to what you said on WP:AN/I. Thank you, Dunc, for what you said. I share your desire to move on and focus on improving the article. You said there is a consensus "to use the English, with the Spanish mentioned quite soon afterwards." I would note that the article does not in fact do that now. You and another editor reverted to a version which has "Islas Malvinas" only quite a bit into the article. Let's find a way to fix that that we can agree on. I'm afraid I can't agree the name Puerto Argentino should not be mentioned anywhere. You said the motive for the name was nationalism, and that may well be. There may be nationalism on both sides. But the NPOV way is to report both sides without adopting either, isn't it? Jonathunder 02:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

British invasions in Río de la Plata

Hi there. I have to tell you that I'm don't quite understand why you moved the British invasions in Río de la Plata article to South American War. The article's title was very specific, and the exact name that is used to name them, whereas the new title absolutely vague and misleading. I would like to rename the article back, but I'm ready to listen to your arguments favouring the new name. Thank you, Mariano(t/c) 09:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There have been many wars in South America, so I consider the current title of South American War to be improper. From your answer, I guess the wisest thing to do would be to use British invasions in the River Plate, or British invasions of the River Plate([2] [3]), which has no Spanish in it. You can do the renaming yourself. Mariano(t/c) 11:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Stay sane

Stay sane, keep up the good work and don't let the vandals and trolls get to you. As far as I am concerned you are one of the most valuable members of our community. Your efforts are appreciated; on the rare occassions when I find myself not agreeing with you, I generally pause to make sure that my opinions are reasonable. Thanks for everything - Guettarda 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Need Your Vote

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester County High School Just Look --JAranda | yeah 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Discovery Institute/CSC

Per your comment at the DI article some months back that the ID specific content largely should go in the CSC article, I've moved it over and tightened both up. I've left some of the criticisms that apply to the DI there, though they may need some pruning too. FeloniousMonk 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

I know because of User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records. I really dont have any ego :), Im just very surprised at the support. My last RFA got 20 votes in total: 4/11/5. →Journalist >>talk<< 17:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Schools, something you may delete

Hi Dunc! Since you don't get to delete schools much I offer you a subpage of my userpage which you may delete. I worked on an article about an 852 year old school in my userspace, at User:Sjakkalle/Bergen Katedralskole, but it is no longer needed since I have moved it into the mainspace. If you want to delete something school related, you may delete that subpage. (But please keep the mainspace article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe my post was a little bit trollish, but I thought I wanted to have a bit of fun. Sorry about that :-). Regarding schools, I usually abstain from such votes, and think that information on mundane schools can usually be advantageously be merged into articles on the school district or town. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, I think I closed the deletion debates as "Keep (no consensus)" if you check the debate pages, although I write "decision was KEEP" in the edit summary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

You seem to be having a difficult time excepting that not everyone shares your POV when it comes to 'science' related articles--WwJd 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please elaborate? Dunc|☺ 22:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well for one, you don't tolerate religiously motivated POV on science pages. David D. (Talk) 22:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, but what would Jesus do? Feed the trolls or confuse them with a parable?Dunc|☺ 22:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Possibly correct all the wikipedia pages that do not agree with his POV ? David D. (Talk) 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

JWSTFU? JWRTFM? I dunno! — ceejayoz ^★ 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for trolling me to death instead of giving me a straight answer--WwJd 03:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dunc and David, WwJd is a newbie. Please don't bite the newbies. Uncle Ed 13:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, grumpy old Uncle Ed again. If the newbie had been a bit more specific I might have had the opportunity to be a little more helpful. I except accept that there are those who do not share my POV, but I need more information to what specifically the newbie is referring.

Perhaps Jesus would tell the fable of the ape that got a little bit clever, thought he was cleverer than he was, invented things called sky fairies and then went around claiming that he was made by sky fairies because he couldn't work the reality out for himself? Dunc|☺ 14:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds more like Plato's cave to me. You know, the prisoners chained to a wall who couldn't see what was causing the shadows, and the elaborate theories they came up with. Uncle Ed 15:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, Is it normal that newbies roll in with such a strong opinion? Or is this just another sock puppet trolling wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Mona_Clonal_Antibodies.3F certainly looked sockpuppety... — ceejayoz ^★ 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't win an argument? start with the name calling, seems common enough around these parts--WwJd 04:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

GWR King Class media

Thanks, Dunc. CLW 06:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Know anything about photosynthesis?

User Natalinasmpf is making some very strange changes to the photosynthesis article. They are in good faith but s/he seems to have quite a few misconceptions. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page but I don't think s/he will listen to my input. If you know something about this area, or know someone who does, maybe you could either join in or send them to join the discussion. I have given up reverting since Natalinasmpf reverts back immediately. Thanks for any input, David D. (Talk) 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

evolution good, genetics pretty good, ecology okay; plant physiology and biochemistry results in a lot of headscratching. I can't see anything wrong with it immediately, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Dunc|☺ 22:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

edit on pseudo-science page

Why did you revert my edits? I simply added Novelty Theory, a popular pseudo-science asnd changed the form of "Gene Ray's Timecube" which is awkward, if that one should be added it still should be referenced by it's name, not by it's creator. I reverted the Scientology back to Dianetics, if that was the issue, because I think ChrisO gave a good argument. Certainly you couldn't have had any problem with BOTH Novelty Theory being added and Time Cube being referenced by it's name? Those are issues which I would expect to be hardly controversial. --Brentt 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Related to William Darwin Fox Q&A

Hi Duncan, I didn't mean to "take-over" your good work, the intention was just to get it right. There is limited information available, and I have some that's been handed down. I'm "vaguely" related, 3rd cousin 3 times removed. Our common ancestors were Samuel Bristowe (1694-1761) and Mary Savage (1701-1791). There were some complicated family relationships around CD and WDF's period; a lot of 1st and 2nd cousin marriages. Studying the descendants reveals that many offspring from those marriages didn't or couldn't breed successfully. Some of the branches just died out.

WDF was born at Thurlston Grange, about halfway between Elvaston and Shardlow in Derbyshire, and spent the first few years of his life there before the family acquired Osmaston Hall (sometimes known as Osmaston Manor). His parents were very rich by the standards of the day, and though WDF was the only son of Samuel Fox and Ann Darwin, he had a half brother, Samuel Fox Jnr, from his fathers first marriage to Martha Strutt from another wealthy Derby family. Marriage settlements were the thing in those days and some of these daughters of wealthy parents came attached with a dowry - or as it was called a "Marriage Settlement". Both Samuel Jnr and William D Fox were left 6,000 pounds each plus a half share in the residual of their father's estate, while each of his sisters received 1,100 pounds.

His two younger sisters lived for many years in Ladbroke Square in London and were waited on by up to six servants. One of those sisters, Frances Jane Fox in 1850 made a collection of materials and fabrics that had been worn or used by her ancestors and attached signed notes to each item describing who had worn it or where it had come from. A lot of those notes and fabrics still survive today, and I am the current "minder". The earlist is a dress worn by Mary Bristowe née Savage in a portrait painted in 1740 (the portrait is now in the Nottinghamshire Archives), while another is of a piece of furniture covering fabric which is described as covering the furniture in the sitting room at Thurlston Grange circa 1810.

I have a website covering the Bristowes and a part of the genealogy of the Fox side is shown in Sheet C in the Genealogy section via the Index.

The url is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~bristowe

Kiwi Kousin 10:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Universism article

Duncharris, please unlock the Universism article - see talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universism There is going to be a feature in the LA Times about this shortly. It would be a good time to reopen the article. Universist 06:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome message.

Ya'll are real attentive!

Thanks. I look forward to making relatively minor but useful contributions in the future. There's a bit to learn, but it appears the rules of common sense apply.

--Col tom 11:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ww0=1V_dSs8?5*

I have sent off an indefinite block against this one. I think it is our old friend Willy on Wheels again. No need to slap the sockpuppets on the wrist with a ruler, just take out the big axe and chop their heads off. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

After reading the noticeboard, it appears I was wrong. The belief there is that this series of users was another old friend, namely Wik. Sorry... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User Alkiviadis

I uploaded a wrong logo and replaced by mistake the logo of BNP Paribas. I uploaded then one from it's site but it doesn;t look the same. I am sorry for the mistake and I would be thankful if you could re-upload it.

Evolution edits

I have recently become aware that you reverted my comments towards Graft on the Talk:Evolution page. I've a full right to take back anything that I have said to anyone after I feel that amends have been made. In the future, please have the decency to notify me of such initiatives that you wish to take in affecting my image on Wikipedia, especially if you were originally uninvolved with the matter at hand. Have a nice day. Salva 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but it's proper to cross things that you reconsider like this, to keep evidence easily accessible. I thought your little rant was an excellent short summary of the views of the nutjob creationist POV-pushers around here. It certainly had comedy value. Are you denying you wrote it? Dunc|☺ 08:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Did I ever say that I didn't write it? Who are you to intervene in a situation that does not concern you? My remarks were highly impulsive, and there was no need to have them on a public page. And I urge you to avoid making generalizations about your opponents. I'm a human being, and as such am liable to make mistakes just like you are. My actions were irresponsible and do not represent all "creationists." Salva 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution&diff=25417665&oldid=25412848

Well, it doesn't make any sense to waste my time when I'm simply ignored. I called Graft a despot because he is - he hates democracy, he's anti-american, anti-Christian, (probably anti-semitic,) pro-Islamofascist and a Neo-Darwinian. He's a despot running his own little fiefdom on Wikipedia with people like Aaarrrgh and thinks he can push objectors like creationists and ID advocates around like his beliefs matter more than theirs do. Let me tell you something, Graft, and Aaaarrgghh, you are products of typical secular University indoctrination that has fueled your contempt for, and your meandering of the scientific processes of peer review and progressivism in favor of preserving your atheist mandates. Well I won't suffer it. That paragraph is in place to confuse and obstruct the path towards truth. It's basically stating that "according to the science of biology, the origin of life can best be explained by random mutation-driven evolutionary processes, and any notion of divine intervention is bunk, and has been replaced." That is not objectivity. It's Wiki-Despotism. To my understanding - in concordance with the controversy that rages today over the origin of life (or Species, which is another word for all life that dwells on Earth,) why would it make sense for this article to claim factual accuracy on matters pertaining to the origin of life - either by way of random abiogenesis or Intelligent Design? Salva 04:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There. Nutjob rant preserved for posterity. It really is quite funny, don't you think? Dunc|☺ 09:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a real mystery why conservative editors don't feel more welcomed here--WwJd 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why are religous people who rant necessarily conservative? Am I missing something here? Forget the politics and look at the content. There's some great stuff on the monoclonal antibodies thread. No content and comments based on ignorance. Seing this kind of thing time and time again, especially in the form of a rant warrants comment. Are you implying that wiki posters with a 'leaning to the left' who post such ignorant comments don't get it thrown back at them? David D. (Talk) 05:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

LadnaV

Hi there! I've fixed this one up since it was a hextuple block within a minute or so, but I just wanted to inform you that if you block a user twice, the shortest block is the one that sticks. So if you want to enhance your block, you must unblock first. Yours, Radiant_>|< 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that the translation of "The Upanishads" by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1884 is still copyrighted #8-) Afsi 23:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

British Rail Class 35

Thank you for pointing out my simple error in such a publicly sarcastic manner. Eddie.willers 17:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a stitch up

Sorry, I haven't had any time to do this recently. I am away all weekend now, and so it will be Tuesday evening at the absolute earliest before I get any chance to even look at it, and realistically as I'm likely to have in the order of 400 photos of my own to sort through (I've got photos unsorted from trips I went on over a year ago still!) then its not going to happen soon. Whithout having seen the source photographs yet I don't know whether it will take me a few mintues or a couple of hours to get a decent panorama with the software I have. Sorry. Thryduulf 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You can now view the results of my efforts on my talk page. Thryduulf 21:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

TVR

I'm afraid I don't know anything about trains. The TVR is just local to me, and all I wrote about the TVR, I just got from a book. Varitek 08:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've returned the book to the library. I need to return some other books in the next week or so, so I'll check then. Cheers, Varitek 09:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Knotty Edit

Hello Duncharris,

Many thanks for your welcome, most kind of you.

I am retired and now living in Llandudno. Formerly of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I was born and educated in Crewe. I have an abiding interest in railways and I am a long standing member of the Ffestiniog and WHR(C) societies and heritage groups. I produce websites for my parish church and for Cytûn, Llandudno Churches Together: http://www.llandudnochurches.org.uk and for my own pleasure: http://www.greatorme.org.uk.

Regards,

NoelWalley

81.154.223.166 07:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo of Novelty

Well done on getting a photo of Novelty at Rainhill in 1980.

I have a few photos I took myself of Novelty from 2002 and this year, as well as other photos of the TV filming in 2002. Only problem is I have not got my head around loading photos onto the system and allocating copyright details

Thanks for advice. I'll find a suitable photo and give it a try. AHEMSLTD 19:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Success with a photo of Matheran Hill Railway loco. AHEMSLTD 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

L Class

Sorry, my knowledge of locomotives and rolling stock is very generalised. Regards, Noel.

Present

Thanks for the photo in the present, it's a nice one. Seems like there should be enough information to create an stub on the Port Talbot Railway & Docks Company and an article on the class of locos. Any idea if those were the only type of locos that the company used, and what class of locos GWR considered to be? Otherwise something like GWR "Port Talbot" Class might be appropriate. Cheers. chowells 13:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Dear Duncharris,

what you have against changing the critisism of pseudoscience page done by me couple of minutes ago?

All the best, Sasha. --Iskander32 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

Dunc,

I see that you are also a scientist. I have nothing by an objective interest in AIG, as I find humor in their egregious "theories". AIG is a phenominon which should be documented. I have posted a few criticisms, a ëvolution of their theory, and a letter which I sent to them. Please do not mistake my curiousity with my condoning their conduct or anti-science. I believe the things I have posted have an anthropological distance from the material, and are neutrally describing what they believe and how they act. In the letter, they proclaim ricidulous things like "plants not being alive". Anyone who reads the letter will find that it is riddled with things that they simply made up to make the ends meet in their philosophy.

Thanks,

Reid 21:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I just saw that you deleted my material. Dunc, c'mon. I just spent two hours preparing that material on AIG, you could have at least read some of it. I do not want a wiki-war, but I would like to restore my additions to the article, as they are a neutral description in every way. Please let me know if you are ok with this.

Reid 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dunc,

Thanks for the partial nod of approval. Would it be alright if we restored the old version, but without the letter part? The part about how they hate Intelligent design, but eventually begin to condone it is really fascinating.

Dunc, I thought you said it was cool. I understand the letter not being in wiki-format, but the change of their belief structure is integral to an impartial perspective. Please don't delete it just to be a wiki-vigilante. My intentions are not to endorse creationism, but to illustrate their theories in the manner an anthropologist describes primitive tribes.

Pseudoscience (again)

Dear Duncharris,

We have already discussed the paragraph I wrote with others - see the part in the archive connected with the "Scientists_against_pseudoscience" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudoscience#Scientists_against_pseudoscience. It seems to me that I was able to persuade others that something needs to be written which would stress that "pseudoscience" was used a lot to punish people - please read the corresponding section of the archive and links therein.

You see, many scientists were fired, killed or committed suicide only because "mainstream" science did not believe their theories (which were proved to be Ok at the end). I think that we need to reflect this in the criticism section. Instead, at the moment, the criticism section looks like an apology for the concept of "pseudoscience".

If you will continue to block this correction - I will probably produce an alternative page with the list of scientists who suffered because of the pseudosience label and make a reference to it in the main article.

Although, I have no idea what you do not like in my correction.

All the best, Sasha. --Iskander32 16:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hello Dunc,

Am I using the NSR Talk page correctly?

Regards, Noel NoelWalley 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

LMS Stanier 2-6-4T

Were there two types of LMS Stanier 2-6-4T? There is the one for the current article, but there is a Stanier 2-6-4T no. 2500 built in 1934 preserved at the National Railway Museum that isn't mentioned (and doesn't fall within the number range). Our Phellap 22:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would it not be easier just to have them both on the same page under different sub-headings? Our Phellap 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

British or English?

Hi I notice you are reverting when a certain user is trying to move people out of the British category. My personal view is that generally a lot of English people see themselves as British, but maybe Scottish or Welsh people like more to identify with their own countries. However I think certain admins have a thing about moving people to the most "exact" sub category, which in my opinion is totally destructive. For example people have been moving people out of Category:People from New York City to Category:Manhattanites and Category:Brooklynites. How far is this going to go- are they going to move people out of those categories to which street they lived in? This would make categories totally useless imo. Arniep 19:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with that if possible we need to find out how they described themselves ideally. They got a few more at Special:Contributions&target=88.106.61.84. Arniep 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Photographic grey

PRR 317 in 1881

There may have been some use of it toward the end of the 19th century, but all the builder's photos that I've seen from American builders use the equipment's in-service paint. It was the photographer's responsibility to ensure that the details could be seen; many photos were modified to remove any background as well, such as the PRR image at right (judging by the angle of the shadows on the locomotive, this photo was probably taken early in the morning). slambo 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Lickey Incline

1 in 37.7 rounds to 1 in 38, not 1 in 37. The claim of steepest sustained is an arguable concept and needs qualification. Please see my words (and make response) on Lickey Incline Talk page Bob aka Linuxlad 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

hi

just wondering how/why you know so much about the mitchison family? i don't use wikipedia that often, so if you want to reply you could use b e a t b o x e d @ h o t m a i l . c o m cheers, mark x

William Darwin Fox

Thanks for tidying the article up. It has grown a bit haphazardly as I've been trying to sort out "fact" from fiction.

Barry

WDF

The Soton University reproduction of a letter from the Geologist in 1862 would indicate the to me the content is no longer copyrighted. Perhaps a courtesy email to Soton University might clarify the situation. It seems to me that it might be a good idea to include a separate section in the current article dealing with WDF's geological and palaentology interests. Many of the Dinosaur sites have doubtful information regarding WDF in their content. It would seem when they make mention of Charles Darwin starting his thesis "On the Evolution of the Species" while staying on the IOW they had no idea that he was staying with WDF or that they were related.

Barry

use of rollback: no message on the discussion page or on my user talk page?

Did you use the rollback function here to revert my changes to Phillip E. Johnson? I thought you might have, because the comment in the edit summary looks just like the sort of text that rollback automatically generates.

I undid your revert, but than you re-did it. What is so urgent about this matter that (a) you had no time to write an edit summary and (b) even afterwards, you left no message on the discussion page or on my user talk page? Uncle Ed 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

What's going on at Phillip E. Johnson? You've reverted Ed four times, which isn't cool. Perhaps you should stop to discuss what you're doing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd only done him three times. Anyway, it's part of his latest foray into POV-pushing on pseudoscience topics. Unsurprisingly, FM has just reverted to the original version. Dunc|☺ 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Technically you only get 3 reverts a day per article regardless of whose revisions you're reverting. In any case, while Ed may well have been POV pushing (I have no idea since I am unfamiliar with the topic), I and many others would appreciate it if you would refrain from edit wars with him, or for that matter, anyone else. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you disagree with the content or not, you don't use admin rollback to revert it; that's abuse of sysop rights. Please don't edit war. Thanks, Rob Church ^Talk 01:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1862

Thanks for your help. Will organise the text mentioned into Wikisource. - Kiwi Kousin 08:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

L Class

I have put a photo of No 18 at Crewe in LNWR days on my web site: http://www.greatorme.org.uk/NSRSynopsis.htm It looks like an L Class but of course I don't know them well enough to be sure. I rediscovered the print (given to me nearly 60 years ago by the photographer's nephew) two days ago when looking for something else. You are welcome to a copy. NoelWalley 18:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You have been summoned to appear as defendant at a Request for Abritation. Please vist the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page to make your statement under the heading Ben. --Ben 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

WDF

Didn't realise there was a WDF(palaeontologist) page. That being the case, then no-one had realised he was the same person.

I'll leave the article alone as the source of some of the information on the DinoWight site is not known, but may have come from the BBC h2g2 site. I have some more info, and when I have it sorted, I'll put it up for discussion. - Kiwi Kousin 23:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

haldane's dilemma

g'day, my name is Graham from Australia

I read the edit on haldane's dilemma and saw it was completely wrong so i made some changes as a stepping stone to something more complete.

My guess is that whoever wrote the article (Was it you?) heard the dilemma explained in laymens terms or something and unfortunately the laymen's explanation led to a complete misconception of the theory.

Haldane's dilemma does NOT come from tacking one substitution after another.

Haldane's dilemma is that it takes just as long to substitute n alleles simultaneously as it takes to substitute them in series. The dilemma is purely mathematical although my write up was an attempt to write it in laymans terms without stripping it of meaning. I'm reverting it back please talk to me in the discussion section

Alphaville

Hello Duncharris, thank you for the info on my German Discusson-page. I will reupload the image. Silberchen 08:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of link to ID in Europe

Hi there - saw you removed my little paragraph on ID-related goings on in Europe. Fair enough but do you think there might be a space for this kind of link elsewhere in the article? Or maybe you think it's irrelevant? I'm new to the Wikipedia so I'll leave it in your hands but I thought it may be worth noting somewhere that the movement is starting to spread outside of US borders... Schama

ID in Europe

Hi again - you're obviously a seasoned and sophisticated Wikipedia editor though your command of the French language seems to be somewhat doubtful. I take it that you are, like me and many others, a strong critic of the whole ID movement. Friggin' strong. But not, I hope, to the extent that you can no longer look at the issues objectively. I added the link to the 'Inside Story' page which, if you think is some kind of promotion for ID, you've completely mis-read. It seems you understand the article to mean that it's the 'théorie de l'évolution' which is 'contestée'. But if you'd read a little more carefully you'd realise that it's the alternative, wacko, 'Inside Story theory of evolution' which is 'contestée'. About a week ago a documentary was shown on national French TV presenting this so-called 'theory'. It was followed by a debate during which a panel of scientists trashed what they saw as pseudoscientific nonsense 'une version française du Intelligent Design'. It caused something of a storm in French intellectual circles and the media who were convinced that France was impermeable to such ideas (see the links to the article in Le Monde). Pretty damn negative just in case you're wondering.

In view of the comments you left on the French site, having marked it up as biased, it strikes me you don't actually know what you're talking about - and this is rather a shame considering the sensitive nature of this subject. I thought the Wikipedia project somehow had an inbuilt system for assuring quality control.

cheers! Schama

a

a

"It is utter garbarge"

Regarding article Quantum evolution. You removed the following for the reason "It is utter garbarge":

Quantum evolution is the hypothesis that genetic mutation is adaptive, or directed through quantum effects.

I quote from the back cover of the book "Quantum Evolution - Life in the Multiverse" by Johnjoe McFadden (a leading theorist in this area, and Professor at Surrey University - i.e. someone who knows more about this than you):

"Living organisms are controlled by a single molecule - DNA. Yet Physics tells us that the behaviour of single molecules is controlled not by classical laws but by quantum mechanics. The implications of this for biology have never been fully explored. Until now. In this brilliant debut, Johnjoe McFadden puts forward a startling new theory of quantum evolution. He shows how quantum mechanics gives living organisms the ability to initiate specific actions including new mutations. Thus evolution may not be random at all but directed - cells may, in certain circumstances, be able to choose to mutate particular genes that provide an advantage in the environment in which the cell finds itself. This property of living organisms to direct their actions has startling implications. It must be at the root of both consciousness and free will: Quantum Evolution provides a new understanding of the origin of life and the meaning of death. Life, this brilliant book argues, is a quantum phenomenon. Quantum Evolution provides a new biology for the new millennium."

Now although this is from the back cover (i.e. hype) it nevertheless reflects the current idea/hypothesis of what quantum evolution is/means.

I have therefore re-added the section you removed. Please continue this discussion on the Talk:Quantum_evolution page if you wish :)

Regards (Theboywonder 13:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

And Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Do you believe everything he says about HIV (Duesberg hypothesis) just becuase he happens to appear to be "someone who knows more about this than you"? David D. (Talk) 15:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I've already given him both barrels on the suggestion that I didn't know what I was talking about and I should fall for the appeal to authority. Dunc|☺ 16:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice reply. Sorry to butt in on your talk page but sometimes I see such crap written here. I think it was Ed poor last time. You're obviously doing a great job of keeping the science as sane as possible in wikipedia. Let's hope we can stop wikipedia becoming like the rest of the internet. The last thing we need are these pet theories being presented as mainstream. How do these prof's get tenure??? David D. (Talk) 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've moved the discussion to the Quantum evolution talk page :) (Theboywonder 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

XSoD merge

I noticed you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red screen of death. Could you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bots

Hi Dunc,

I have been translating some articles from en to de. Each time I have added the interwikilink in en manually. So this is not a bot activity. Are such changes supposed to be done from a bot account?

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Taunting people

Hi Duncharris,

If you 'know you shouldn't', why do you do it? [4]

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Duncharris,

At 21:33 you are on my page, agreeing that taunting people is wrong, and within 60 seconds you are taunting NewGuy, here on your talk page, in the section right below this one.

This behaviour is disrepectful. Please stop taunting people, regardless of how much you feel they deserve it.

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

LEAVE MY ELEVATOR ALONE!

I would appreciate it if you would leave the 'attacked' in the Darwin's Legacy bit alone; the theory did NOT overturn Creationist biology. Thanks. The New Guy

Why, of course, whatever you say! Clearly you know your history of science! (but hey watch out for the 3RR ;) ) Dunc|☺ 21:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain why 'attack' keeps getting reverted to 'overturn' in the article on Darwin? The theory of evolution has not 'overturned' anything.

Helo

Greetings,Mr Duncharris.Sorry for my schoolcruft article.Anyway,what's that BEEFSTEW thing you mentioned?Sorry for my late reply...Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 02:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Eurostar Links

Dear Duncharris

I work for Rail Europe, which is the UK subsidiary of SNCF (we're also Eurostar's sister company). We added a link to the Eurostar page yesterday which was promptly reverted back to the previous version. As this is my first time on Wikipedia, and not being very familiar with the guidelines, please could you let me know why this is? Also, if there's any possibility of including our (relevant) links to this page?

Our sites include:

• http://www.raileurope.co.uk
• http://www.tgv.co.uk
• http://www.sncf.co.uk

Best Regards

Caroline Heaton eCommerce Executive Rail Europe Ltd

Caroline, see wikipedia:External links for the policy. Your sites are linked from the appropriate pages SNCF, TGV. However, the top link for Eurostar should be the Eurostar homepage for obvious reasons. I do not particularly like http://www.raileurope.co.uk being linked from Eurostar as you are acting as one of several agents and are seeking to gain a competitive advantage. Rail Europe however could do with a page, though it does usually get a bashing in the editorial in Todays Railways... Dunc|☺ 19:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the prompt response. Rail Europe is a 100% SNCF owned and Eurostar is a 70% SNCF owned. We are a sister company (rather than an agent) and we both promote each other's products for mutual gain. I respect your decision to remove the link. However, I hope this clarification may help you reconsider your position on this matter.

Seeking copy of deleted Wikipedia entry

Hi, I'm seeking a deleted Wikipedia entry dated Aug. 30 that I'd love to have for posterity. I have no desire to see it published, I'd just like to be able to access and keep the text. I'd apppreciate it if you could me privately at sklarra@gmail.com so I can give you the details. Thank you.

Jason Gastrich

I'd like to thank you for nominating Jason Gastrich for deletion. Writing an encyclopedia is a serious prject, and there are only rare occasions for mirth. This nomination has generatd more merriment than I can recall recently. I always crack a smile when I read over the line, "[P]eople love him for his numerous Wikipedia entries". Though humorous I know your action had a serious purpose, which I thank you for as well, of course. OTOH, doesn't this passage:

Whoever opposes Jason Gastrich's entries here, are entering a dark and forboding realm of communistic limiting of not only free speech, but the controlling of the dissemination of knowledge...from all areas. To limit knowledge is dispicable, and robs people of the freedm to choose their path based on ALL viewpoints.

truly reflect the core of Wikipedia's philosophy (if not its orthography)? Hmmmmm. -Willmcw 11:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Check out this page Dunc, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jas, you'll find it very amusing. It looks like Jason gave the wrong URL to all his supporters. Every edit is a one off user. How do you imagine they found this page? LOL David D. (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: ... units

They're more the exception than the rule. The only type that I can think of off the top of my head is the Little Joe type that was used on the Milwaukee Road and the South Shore. Those were originally built for export to Russia, but were diverted to US roads after the revolution there, and the cabs at one end of them were disabled (in the Milwaukee Road's case, the windows were even plated over). slambo 16:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your POV Pushing

• You claim that Louisiana Baptist University is a diploma mill. However, this is POV pushing and violates Wiki's NPOV.
• Do you have any evidence for your claim?
• A lot of evidence has been offered to the contrary. It includes:
  • Founded in 1973
  • On-campus university and graduate school
  • World leaders in the distance learning industry with nearly 400 courses
  • Their enrollment exceeds 1,100 students in 40 different states and 20 different countries.
  • An approved school of the Baptist Bible Fellowship
  • Notable alumni include:
    • Carl Baugh
    • Bill Gothard
    • Thomas Ice
    • Grant Jeffrey
    • Chuck Missler
    • Charles Pack

• LBU is one of five approved colleges and universities of the Baptist Bible Fellowship. The BBFI is a fellowship with over 4,000 churches in the United States and several foreign countries. Students who complete their degree in missions through LBU and meet other requirements can be approved as fellowship missionaries.

• LBU is is listed in the Directory of Postsecondary Institutions published by the National Center for Educational Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. It is also a member school of the Association of Christian Schools International. ACSI is the largest association of Christian schools in the world.

• The University holds full institutional approval from the Association of Christian Colleges and Theological Schools. ACCTS is designed to monitor religious colleges, universities and seminaries and holds no secular status with the U.S. Department of Education or any other agency. As primarily a religious institution, LBU has not sought either regional or national accreditation by a secular accrediting agency.

• LBU's CEO currently holds membership with the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. CAEL is a non-profit organization devoted to expanding lifelong learning opportunities for adults and to advancing experiential learning and its assessment. CAEL works with its members and clients to support and develop educational institutions and professionals in adult learning and prior learning assessment.

Edit summaries

Just be aware that there is no place on Wikipedia for offensive edit summaries, such as [5]. I understand that you might have been frustrated by the CSD tag being applied, but there is nt excuse for insults or personal attacks. Thryduulf 14:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

How do I join the WikiProject Trains?

I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to join the project but was unsure how to do so.

Thanks. Suicidalhamster 00:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Gastrich again

In case you haven't noticed, looks like another sock puppet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chacha1

Mark K. Bilbo 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou Mark. I do really dislike religiously inspired POV pushers (especially Moonies). — Dunc|☺ 15:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be hard pressed to call it "religiously inspired." He expends a great deal of effort on getting his own name and website(s) into the Wiki (or whatever forum he's in at the time). Looks more like simple self-promotion than religion. Mark K. Bilbo 16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself

Hi Duncharris —

unblocking yourself is quite explicitly forbidden in the blocking policy. To wit: "Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so. If an admin feels they were not blocked for a valid reason, the safest course is to contact the blocking admin, another admin, or the mailing list and ask to be unblocked."

I've reblocked you, particularly as I believe the earlier block was well-founded (there was no call for saying "fuck off" to someone who puts a seemingly valid notice on your article), but most importantly because you should sort it out with someone else first rather than unblocking yourself. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've posted it on WP:AN for a second opinion. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Asbestos, I thought admins could unblock themselves. I've done it before, but found that I couldn't today. Anyway, it was such a ridiculous ban it was hardly worth commenting on.

I admit I shouldn't have sworn, but Ed's action was completely out of proportion and a deliberate escalation. And anyway user:Thryduulf had already told me off, politely. I didn't realise everyone was so bloody sensitive. — Dunc|☺ 17:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"I didn't realise everyone was so bloody sensitive." This is a sentiment i definitely agree with. In the schools debate people are always citing the WP-CIVIL code when they perceive the smallest slight, usually in the form of a criticism with regard to the users argument and not personal in nature. As far as I can tell it is used to deflect critical debate and avoid making reasoned arguments. Basically, it is used as an excuse to leave the table and ignore the discussion. In the schools debate when people cite WP:CIVIL it is a sure sign they cannot defend their position. I expect it is true in the evolution/creationism debate too.

While fuck off is kind of strong, major understatement here ;-), i understand the frustration of having to deal with other editors that refuse to critically debate their position and just carry on regardless. For some reason wikipedia seems very tolerant of editors that ignore the talk page and then overreacts when reasonable editors get frustrated. Why is this the case?? David D. (Talk) 17:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• People cite WP:CIVIL in the schools debate because so many people are being dicks to each other. I haven't seen anyone just say, "Well, you're being uncivil, I'm done talking" then walk away. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, you have seen people walk away, nearly permanently. On November 14, 2005, you personally welcomed Rob back [6] after he had quit Wikipedia entirely due to lack of civility by other editors who need not be named. Silensor 19:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• (Dunc, please excuse this OT reply on your talk page) I am sure there are many valid citations but there are also many times it is invoked when there appears to be no valid reason. One can't be too oversensitive in a charged debate if the real intention is to reach a compromise. I just don't understand why there are so many sensitive souls in the schools debate who are also veterans of the schools debate? If one filters out the dicks, progress will be made. Otherwise the stalling continues with a 'no-consensus keep'. Of course that suits some just fine but does not lead to cooperation. I don't particularly want to see schools as a major focus in wikipedia, but i find it frustrating to see so many waste their time squabbling when a small amount of compromise and cooperation could build something really useful. You, A Man In Black have done more than most to further discussion and I am very impressed. I wish more of the other participants were more like yourself. David D. (Talk) 18:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Block/Unblock

I have unblocked you. Please, however, be more civil in your edit summaries, and do not use your admin powers to self-unblock in the future. Phil Sandifer 17:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou. Atleast some around here have common sense. — Dunc|☺ 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see all of this and blocked you again for a shorter period. I'm unblocking now. Please contact someone else if there's a block that you think is in error. Karmafist 22:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I don't have any common sense. I reblocked you for your egregiously abusive edit summary. Please be more civil in the future. Nandesuka 22:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done for admitting it. Now run along and leave me alone. — Dunc|☺ 22:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Below is your message to me about my 'vandalism', along with my reply.

"Please do not add speedy delete tags to pages that do not qualify as

such. It is considered vandalism.
— Dunc|☺ 14:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

So one-line gibberish pages and movies that don't exist aren't

quailified for speedy deletion? I don't get it. I patrol Newpages

and try to help out, and I get warned. Meanwhile, another user adds

a speedy delete tag to an article when the

consensus was "keep" and no one cares. - Kookykman|(t)e"

This has gone unanswered on my talk page. It seems as though you don't revisit the talk pages of those you accuse of vandalism. Although my words were somewhat harsh in my reply, my message still stands: my actions were a good-faith attempt to help this encyclopedia and its members. - Kookykman|(t)e

Abusive language and sysops

A cursory grep of your contributions to Wikipedia shows that you have made the following edit summaries:

• [7] - "fuck off"
• [8] - "grrrr!!! I want save not fucking preview!"
• [9] - "save not preview!!! fucking hell"
• [10] - "yeah whatever. To Bahn Mi (cos I know you're watching) fuck off"
• [11] - "Talk:Fjellstrand Skole moved to Talk:Fjellstrand skole: Do not move VFD nominations, it fucks them up real good"
• [12] - "Abusive language - fuck off"
• [13] - "seriously fucked up"
• [14] "Portmadoc, Beddgelert & South Snowdon Railway moved to Portmadoc, Beddgelert and South Snowdon Railway: I hate having to fucking do this!"
• [15] "Rushden, Higham & Wellingborough Railway moved to Rushden, Higham and Wellingborough Railway: and AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND for fuck sake how many of these bleeding things do I have to move?"
• [16] - "totally disputed. fucking group selection!"
• [17] - "what the fuck is this?"
• [18] - "Morality links -fucking hell"
• [19] - "fucking hell!"
• [20] - "oh for fucks sake,"
• [21] - "for fucks sake!"
• [22] - "delete this fucking page"

Please note that these are only summaries, in some cases it appears that your actual page changes, when comments left to another member of Wikipedia, were even more offensive. Since this has not been resolved through repeated requests for civility on your talk page, I would like to open this up for broader discussion on RFC. Silensor 20:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Since a large number of these are aimed at the software and not at other users, the only consistent thing here is using the word fuck in edit summaries. Where in policy is this forbidden? Guettarda 20:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it's a real bugger if we are all going to be banned for swearing in the heat of the moment. Giano | talk 22:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I would support an RFC. I have discussed similar matters with Dunc here, above, and on my own talk page, without getting lasting satisfaction.[23] I also note that Dunc has taken to blanking criticism of his behaviour. [24] and using misleading edit summaries [25]. For me, the issue is not so much the potty mouthed language, as the intimidation and abuse. For eg "Don't add speedy tags at all if you are incapable of making a simple decision"[26]. And he does seem to be abusing his admin status "Are you saying you think a page written by an admin..." (same cite). Regards, Ben Aveling 22:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If Dunc really thinks that being an admin makes his edits "more contentful" than those of non-admin editors, then he has a very fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia and everything it stands for. Nandesuka 00:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Rollback

Pleaase do not use your administrative rollback in POV disputes, like you have recently done at Carl Baugh. You should know better (and it's not the first time it's been brought up). I shouldn't have to point an admin to policy pages, but perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Revert#Admins if you have any confusion over the rollback button's purpose. It's just for simple vandalism. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 20:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That was simple vandalism by User:Jason Gastrich. Look him up. Anyone else got any pointless comments or criticism? — Dunc|☺ 21:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...tough one. Yeah - how about this edit? If you are an anti-religious zealot, how come you are reverting vandalism of that page? And, yeah, let me cite you for failing to obey WP:IAR.  :-) Guettarda 21:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I've been blocked for no good reason again...

I think it's time to block everyone involved for failure to violate IAR. Guettarda 22:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, I don't care if you are being criticized for other things, but that does not warrant your dismissive (frankly rude) comment here. POV disputes are not simple vandalism. An admin should know better. You've done it before, too. I'm asking you to maturely consider your actions, and act more apropriately in the future. Don't just blow it off. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy does not forbid using rollback for things other than vandalism. Guettarda 02:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy does not forbid it. But the guidelines recommend against it:

Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send 
the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even 
the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; 
do not abuse it.
If you insist on using the rollback feature for non-vandalism edits, be sure to explain 
on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.

(and I know this because User:Ral315 recently took me to task — correctly — for using the rollback button on non-vandalism edits. I hadn't read the guidelines carefully enough. After reading them, I realized he was right.) Nandesuka 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just in case...

Just on the off-chance that you were not aware, you are being discussed at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Just thought you'd like to know if you already didn't. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

D'oh, I see you've commented there. Ignore that last little message. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I've been watching with an increased sense of bemusement at the absurdity and pointlessness of all this. Even using swear words as modifiers don't convey the ridiculousness of this whole affair. — Dunc|☺ 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it did seem to get a little crazy over there. I don't think people have a problem with the words themselves, but rather how they are used. I don't really give a crap what words you use when writing, but when you start directing them at others is when trouble starts. I would say just try to be a little more civil, especially when dealing with people that don't like the language. Cheers, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Deny this, please.

Deleting other user's comments on talk pages is considered vandalism. [27] - Kookykman|(t)e

I'm sorry, but I'd prefer that you give a better reason to revert this than "trolling", as if this is so, then I might as well remove all your comments from my talk page, claiming them to be trolling. - Kookykman|(t)e

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris

Please repond to your RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris. Silensor 23:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to you for your willingness to aknowledge your mistakes in your response to this. There are far too few people about here with the guts to do that. I was one of those criticising your self-unblocking, but as far as I'm concerned your aknowledgement of the criticism draws a line under it. I hope others too will now reflect on their own actions. --Doc ^ask? 22:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hy man I am sorry that Jimbo Wales wants you to be de-administrator-ised man... that sucks...Wiki brah 05:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

Thanks for your suggestions regarding my behavior. I'll return the advice, and suggest that you consider the appropriateness of your actions as well. Kindest regards, Nandesuka 23:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Your appology at user talk:Kookyman

Thank you for this appology, it is exactly what I was was hoping for as an outcome to the RfC. Would you mind copying it to the RfC page so that more people are aware of it. Hopefully this will allow the RfC to be closed. Thryduulf 14:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:AN/I

Proper or not, disruptive or not, sockpuppets are against policy. That was basically just a notice that if he does anything outside of just one account, i'll block them all. Karmafist 18:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You've been keeping an eye on him alot longer than I have, so you might have become jaded as I have become while dealing with Pigsonthewing. I disagree regarding the disruption versus sock idea, but in the end, they're all important. I'm not encouraging him to hide them, but rather not to use them at all, and what would happen if he does continue to use them on User talk:Jason Gastrich. Right now he seems to be in clueless newbie phase regarding Wiki-policies, so I think WP:BITE applies, at least to a small extent. Let me know if you need an outside voice/perspective in dealing with him, his POV does need to be toned down a bit.Karmafist 23:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Microevolution

Duncharris,

Why did you delete my example of the primrose plant? It's a fine example of Microevolution.

Regards,

--Jason Gastrich 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929). Since this is an example of polyploidy leading to a new species why would this be a good example of microevolution? David D. (Talk) 22:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Obviously that would be macroevolution - Guettarda 22:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it makes a little more sense now. Well of course there is no absolute dividing line between microevolution and macroevolution, merely a reductionist v holistic approach, both of which reveal different aspects of evolution. But I would have it as speciation or an ploidy mutation -- I think it best not to confuse people with it anyway. — Dunc|☺ 22:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Two things. First, I was referring to the Evening Primrose and I cited the study on the Microevolution page that you edited/reverted. It's a fine example of microevolution. Next, macroevolution has not been observed, so let's not muddy the waters. Thanks.--Jason Gastrich 10:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason, you did not provide enough information or context to make the information useful. I will be asking David to elaborate because it sounds interesting. Thankyou for bringing it to my attention. However, the idea that macroevolution has not been observed is plain wrong. It is readily observable in the fossil record and through phylogeny. — Dunc|☺ 11:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, when I read Jason's edits I got the wrong end of the stick and assumed he was talking about Primula. I don't know why Jason says macroevolution has not been observed? Jason my original objection to your edit was that I assumed you were using an example of macroevolution i.e. Primula kewensis. Not to mention there was no context in your edit to allow someone to understand your point. Iinterestingly, if you don't think that Primula kewensis, a new species of Primula, is an example of macroevolution then how do you define the term?

But back to the evening primrose example that Jason cited as an example of microevolution. I think Jason is correct that this could be an example of microevolution, although there needs to be more a lot more background written, the link does not stand on its own. From the source that Jason cites: "Hugo De Vries discovered new forms among a display of Evening Primrose Oenothera lamarcklana growing wild in a waste meadow............. The name "mutation" was given to his new method of producing new species and varieties (cultivars) which he showed to arise unexpectedly." So what was being described here is new variants in the population. If these variants were fixed, rather than one off examples, then this would be a good example of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population. The problem is that i do not know much more about this example of variation in a population. It seems that de Vries concentrated on the idea of hopeful monsters and did breeding experiments making new species by polyploidisation, for example, the tetraploid Oenothera gigas, from the diploid Oenothera lamarckiana. It's possible that he did not really study the population genetics any more than a casual observation, although, it does have some historical interest since according to the citation it is the first use of the term mutation. David D. (Talk) 18:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

CD & WDF

Have included a url in the William Darwin Fox discussion page to a Darwin 4 Generation Family Tree from Robert Darwin down to CD & WDF which includes the Fox, Galton and Wedgwood connections. Would you mind having a look and letting me know if you consider it ok to include with the article.

Have also had a look at your Darwin list of articles that need fixing up and note that Sir Francis Sacheverel Darwin is not amongst them. Could make a good project. He was an MD and spent some time touring the Med trying to understand the spread of diseases etc. Got his "gong" through saying nice things about the King! - Kiwi Kousin 07:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, come on, be bold, you don't need childminding! :) I started most of the Darwin family pages and was constantly amazed when new ones kept on turning up, so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed any. And that Francis might easily be confused with hte other Francis Darwin. But there's no need to be rude about your Royal family ;) — Dunc|☺ 11:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

dembski page

Why am I allowed to just click edit and change whatever I want, with no kind of disclaimer, yet I'm REALLY not allowed to make any real changes. Whoever is in charge of this site needs to make clear the rules for editing, because there are none.

And there is just misinformation on this page (i.e. it says ID has not published any peer-reviewed articles...they have published many, and some of what is said is not true at all). I doubt I'll even be able to change them though.

Right

Is there some other way for me to respond besides clicking on your name, and the link?

"represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view".

I don't understand this - Einstein's relativity theory used to be the minority view, but how does this imply that it was more likely to be pseudoscience than science, and Newtonian physics (at the time) considered scientific? This quote should just get rid of the "scientific" and "pseudoscientific", because in truth BOTH the majority and minority view can be scientific or not, which history has proven more than once.

"please do not make drastic changes to articles without mentioning them on the talk page first. We've gone through all this before with Dembski's page but sensible suggestions will be taken on board."

I understand but this should be EXPLICIT when you click on the "edit" button in the first place.

"Write about your favourite music group or something else that interests you that isn't a controversial issue just to learn the ropes?"

I'm not sure why you are telling me this - I care about cleaning up misinformation so that people don't have a false conception of something, I don't have much interest in adding different ideas. Just correcting mistakes in this case.

I have studied the ID and evolution debate for years both in and out of my university and it's patently obvious that there is a huge slant in the page, and in many cases false information. I really don't mean to be condescending in any way but the reason you don't see the slant and I do is because I have studied a large portion of Dembski's work and know the issue very thoroughly.

The page is well-written, and it is no doubt the most subtle and best disguised slant I've seen on ID, but it was still not hard for me to recognize one bit.

Reverts

Hello Duncharris. Can you please explain why you reverted the Category edits that I did ? If I understood the categorization policies clearly, having both a category and a subcategory of that category on the same article is not considered to be a good thing. So what did I do wrong ? Thanks. -- Ze miguel 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I realise your edits were in good faith.

but the article foo should go in category:foo and if foo is a bar, category:foo and foo should both go in category:bar. — Dunc|☺ 16:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

btw, user:Lumos3 agrees with me, he also reverted 1 of your edits. — Dunc|☺ 16:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point. Would you please have a look at Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating_subcategories ? I think it clearly states that, unless it's a special case, the lowest-level category should be used, and only that category. Otherwise, George W Bush would be in 2000 categories. So I think this policy makes sense. -- Ze miguel 16:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverts #2

I've just noticed that my first attempt to contribute in this forum, on page "The_Origin_of_Species", was reverted by you without any justification. From what I have learned by examining this forum, it seems appropriate a revert be explained (justified, at least some little effort). This is disconcerting, since I did enough research in advance to be at least resonably confident that I was acting properly in submitting this change.

Please explain on the discussion of that page why you reverted my changes without explaination, why this was done as a "minor" edit, and provide your justifcation for reverting my changes.

I appreciate that you appear to be a long time contribtor, whereas I have made it very clear I am new; however, if anything, it seems this would increase your obligations in this respect rather than reduce it.

- Cris: Csmwiki 00:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom

I have proposed a reform of this category that you might be interested in commenting on. See Category talk:Railway stations in the United Kingdom for details. Thryduulf 02:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

dioceses

Let's keep cool. On procedure, I may be a bit hamfisted. On the subject matter, I am pretty well qualified in this area, and no chicken. The continuity tack is not a fact but a POV. It has also not been supported by a good number of Anglican diocesan entries. And my auntie (Anglican) would have done something terrible to anyone who tried to maintain it. Anything I have written has aimed at courtesy and avoiding any sort of polemics. The articles are also nobody's property. It the odd Anglican doesn't like it, perhaps some animist will. Thanks for the reaction, however. Regards.

Telestylo: whilst/while

Hi Dunc. You're a known (UK) bruiser. Could you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Telestylo:_whilst.2Fwhile, and perhaps User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Please_don.27t_vandalize. Thanks. William M. Connolley 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

Hello Dunc,

This all started over an edit I made to The Deep (John Crowley), an edit that I still believe conforms to the rules as you've tried to clarify them for me. Can you please take a look at that article and get back to me? Since the author is American, I feel that the word should be changed and the spellings in the article be uniformized.

Thanks in advance,

Telestylo 22:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Rebuttals

Hi Dunc,

I hope you're well.

I've added a paragraph on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible entry for info on rebuttals. I know the people who deleted the original mention of a rebuttal. They'll certainly return and change or delete my most recent contribution. Please drop by that entry and see what happens. I see no reason why the info about rebuttals should be removed.

Sincerely,

Jason Gastrich --Jason Gastrich 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• As I anticipated, my entire contribution was reverted. Please help. I don't want to get into a revert war because that won't help solve the problem. I've posted a message on the talk page for the SAB, but I doubt the reverter will be reasonable. As you probably remember, you were the one who originally added my name. I simply made a coherent paragraph about rebuttals WITHOUT linking my commercial rebuttal site.

Jason Gastrich 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • You added my name and info about a rebuttal. Are you going to come to the discussion and defend mentioning a rebuttal? --Jason Gastrich 03:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete?

Does The_Great_Snipe_Hunt fit the "speedy delete" criteria? Looks like somebody's idea of a joke. And where do you point these things out? Is there a page to tug on the pant leg of admins in general and point "lookie lookie?" Mark K. Bilbo 02:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, wait, found it. Now if I just did it right... Mark K. Bilbo 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)