User talk:EarthPerson/Archive 1

Hello and welcome. Just a quick entry to set this up. That way, I can see the contents incase the first post here was very large. - EarthPerson

WP:PROD

Just a quick heads-up - policy is NOT to re-insert a {{prod}}. It is for proposed unchallenged deletion of articles. Anyone is entitled to remove it, hence implicitly challenging the proposal. Once challenged procedure is to propose AfD not re-assert the {{prod}}. This came to light with regard to DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin and Lacy which has now been put to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 30). Cain Mosni 02:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice on the prod tag. My apologies. I was confusing this with the AfD tag. You were one of two who let me know. Yipes! :) --EarthPerson 02:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(also mirrored on your talk page)

I saw the reply. Thankyou. Most courteous. Anyhow - no worries. Confusion is easy. I can only be smug about it because I happened to look it up less than half an hour ago. Prior to that I'd always gone through AfD. Cain Mosni 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Prod

Per the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy:

“ If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. ”

The removal of the prod tag from DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin and Lacy by Harvardlaw (talk · contribs) was clearly an objection to deletion and therefore should not have been reverted. The proper thing to do in such cases is to take the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion rather than reinsert the prod tag; I have therefore nominated the article (deletion discussion). Please do not revert removals of prod tags in the future, regardless of how much the article deserves deletion. Happy editing! -- Jonel | Speak 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

ditto from above --EarthPerson 02:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(also mirrored on your talk page)

I added the following to Harvardlaw's talk page in reference to this issue;

Note: Removal of the 'prod' templates is allowed and taken as indication that someone believes the article should be kept. The 'prod' template should never be re-added to a page. Further, this demonstrates the problems of the 'wr0' and related templates. IMO these should never be used as being forced to display a past warning is insulting and can become harassment... but is especially bad when the warning was incorrect. It is too easy to make mistakes about process or have different interpretations of what is 'neutral point of view' or 'vandalism', and thus we should not be edit-warring to enforce display of potentially mistaken or subjective warnings. --CBD 11:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fictional astronauts

The order is (ideally) in terms of technical difficulty - which for the most part corresponds to distance from Earth, so, Moon bases < Venus missions < Mars missions < Jupiter < Saturn < interstellar travel. The idea is to give the fictional works in the context of a kind of "future history" with increasingly ambitious and technically challenging missions, so that someone using the list can find the works with similar subject matter immediately adjacent to each other; but the assignment of fictional dates by the various writers turns out to be so random that they can't be used for that purpose. RandomCritic 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Ummm...I'm not sure how to contact people on this site, so forgive me if this is wrong, but I'm a little confused as to what I did to make you think I vandalized something. I checked the page you said I vandalized (something about July 8th?), and I don't even remember viewing that page, much less editing or vandalizing it. So unless I have amnesia or something, I'd like an explanation. (70.187.226.94)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.226.94 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 November 2006

Hi. You contacted me correctly. Forgive me if you took offense at my message. I'm referring to the edits to the article July 8, 2004 shown here [1] and here [2] which I reverted here [3]. The first two edits were done by the IP address you are using. You can see edits for any page by looking at the History tab for an article.

Since IP addresses can be dynamic, it most certainly could have been someone else. You can see other messages from other editors on your IP address' talk page, so it looks like this IP has been used before for disruptive editing.

My apologies as I did not mean to insult you. Please feel welcome to Wikipedia. Please read the Introduction and you may want to consider creating your own account for editing. That way, you won't be mistaken for other user who may have used the same IP address as you. --EarthPerson 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Note: this was also posted, along with your post for context, to the 70.187.226.94 talk page.)

Well, it must have been someone else, because as I said, I've never been to that page, and I certainly didn't make those edits. I'm not exactly computer-savvy, so I have only the faintest idea what an IP address is, and I don't know what you mean by shared IP address and all of the rest...all I know is that the person who's typing this right now (and the person who saw your message) didn't make those edits. It's no big deal or anything, I just wanted to figure out why I was getting a message to stop doing something I hadn't done. (70.187.226.94)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.226.94 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 November 2006

Okay. No harm, no foul.  :) I'm often under the incorrect thought that most people who are here are people editing, when the number of people who are just reading is surely much higher. Again, welcome and please feel free to edit if you desire or just to use Wikipedia as a reference. --EarthPerson 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

1. That page was junk and vandalism, not a collection of a comments to improve the article. 2. I dont need junk about edit summaries. 3. I dont mean to be rude, its the readers fault if they assume so. Thats why I removed the text from my page and brought the talk page on the article back to its clean slate. Pogo 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Polyphasic sleep

It seems you actually accidentally vandalized polyphasic sleep. The vandalism was already reverted when you edited the page, so you ended up restoring the vandalism. This has now been corrected. Please be careful in your edits. A reply to this comment is not necessary and will not be reviewed by me. --Amit 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks. I didn't catch that. --EarthPerson 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Harvardlaw

Good catch. I just noticed user:72.204.225.148 but I see you were way ahead of me. If he hadn't insisted on once again inserting vain material into the project I'd have let it pass, but he seems unable to do so. I've blocked the IP, which appears to be used by him exclusively, for two months. That's unusually long for an IP, but thenthere is a long history with this user. -Will Beback · † · 08:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He is someone that I've gotten in the habit of checking up on. He does have a huge set of IPs used in the past. I thought about making a subpage on these, but didn't since that would be tantamount to stalking. He does have great potential and I think that's why he is tolerated over other more vandalous editors. I would think that someone with nearly a dozen IPs would be banned, but he's like an exasperating student. If he were to create pages on some of his interests outside of Wikipedia, some could be excellent external links.--EarthPerson 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he has potential, but he tends to distort facts. His work on the USS Simpson article became increasingly fanciful. He is not entirely tolerated - user:Harvardlaw was blocked indefinitely. I hope that blocking this one IP doesn't disturb your ability to track him. It may, of course, just push him onto a different IP. -Will Beback · † · 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

user:Harvardlaw doesn't show as blocked on the talk or (not created) user page, so I was not aware of that. I thought someone would have blocked the myriad of IPs and encouraged him to use the named ID. After reading his edit to Pinal County, Arizona, I agree with the word fanciful.  :) --EarthPerson 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the block: [4] If you're a fan of Silver you may enjoy this edit, the one that led to this latest block: [5] Still, it doesn't compare to one of the greatest bits of vanity I've seen on Wikipedia: [6] It's really kind of funny. -Will Beback · † · 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

comment from User:82.12.252.122

(Moved from my User Page to my Talk Page)

Why are you messaging me, huh, 82.12.252.122 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC), is it about my comment on the M. Donald discussion page, in my opinion it wasn't fair, I wasn't rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.252.122 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 December 2006

First, please use my Talk Page and not my User Page to communicate. And please sign your posts properly. I'm commenting about your additions to both Talk:Emmett Till and Talk:Stand!. I have attributed these to you based on the page histories and then removed them. You can see them in the respective page histories. As for your remarks on Talk:Michael Donald, all I did was to attribute them to you as one was unsigned and the second was signed by another user who did not appear to be you. They are baiting, but are not as inflammatory as the first two. You or whoever else edited under your IP address left remarks here and here that serve only to spread hate and uncivil behavior. If these remarks were not made by you then I do apologize. You may want to create an ID if you want to edit. --EarthPerson 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi EarthPerson -

Thanks for your comment about the Name - it is a difficult one - it seems every name you could choose has various meanings. Personally I think sponsor is a bit formal, a bit money orientated. But then again adoption sounds like a bond for life. I hope you will consider becoming an Adopter though - could do with the help, or indeed just the word spread around. Cheers Lethaniol 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will stay and make your contributions to WP:ADOPT. It is very useful for an outsider (i.e. I don't think you have "adopted" anyone) to comment and bring some thoughts to the discussion. Stops us getting too carried away.

In terms of the term Adoption - I don't, and I suspect anyone else does care about the term - it is the principle of the system that we do.

Cheers Lethaniol 14:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Lethaniol, I don't know if you'll read this or not (I know, I could post it to your talk page), but I did want to follow up on this, even if for my own need to decompress. I was bothered by this exchange relating to WP:ADOPT. What was said would never have been said if the term was mentor. I found this by looking over talk pages of people involved with WP:ADOPT.

I've not taken the adoption project page off my watch list, but I rarely lurk there. Hope all is well. Ironic also that User:Flameviper is banned when they were the one that started the project. --EarthPerson 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

comment from User:82.2.52.167

(Moved from my User Page to my Talk Page)

WHY DO YOU KEEP ON REMOVING MY COMMENTS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, DO YOU WANT ME TO VANDALISE YOUR ARTICLES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.52.167 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 December 2006

Firstly, I don't want you to vandalize any articles. If you only want to vandalize, then you should't be here. Vandalism is not welcome. If you are the same user as User:82.12.252.122 then you either didn't read Wikipedia:Civility or you didn't understand it. I removed those comments because they were offensive. I don't understand why you are proud of them. You are welcome to revert them but they will get removed again. If not by me, then by someone else.

Also, please comment on my talk page, not my user page and please sign your post with four tildes (the "~" character) in a row. That will put your ID and a timestamp by what you've added. Please give me a link to what you say I've done. You can paste it here in your reply. Or tell me the article or articles and I will check the history. As for it having nothing to do with me - Wikipedia is for everyone to edit. Please tell me what you mean.

You may want to consider getting an ID rather than use an anonymouse IP. The one that you are currently using has only commented on my user page and so I really can't tell what you are referring to. Thanks. --EarthPerson 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

For future reference, to list a page that you created in error or one with only contributions by you, you only have to add a {{db-author}} to the article to list it on CAT:CSD for speedy deletion :D. I speedy deleted the MFD request, nonetheless. Cowman109^Talk 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I panicked bit when I saw it was in the WP space. I just checked and the BJAODN link is correct now. --EarthPerson 01:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the revert on my user page.  :) NawlinWiki 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You may get to return the favor.  ;) --EarthPerson 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Spam

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

comment from 206.131.152.91

(Moved to its own section)

Dear Eath Person, you've got the wrong man! I didn't vandalize nothin! For more details see the article on "Hitchcockian wrong man situations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.131.152.91 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 December 2006

Your talk page and contributions seem to indicate otherwise. If this is someone using a shared IP, then be aware that others are using it vandalize Wikipedia. You should consider making an account so as not to be mistaken for another person. --EarthPerson 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you send messages?

Hey, thanks for sending me the message! I'm a new user and I don't know how you send messages, would you mind telling me how? And one more thing, how do you edit pages with a lock on them? I wanted to add stuff to the evolution page - (the different kinds of evolution macro, micro, cosmic...) Would adding you on my watchlist be like adding you as a friend? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel 19 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi Daniel 19, I must have sent the message to the talk page of the IP address that you were using. Can you tell me what page it was that you edited? Sending a message is a simple matter of signing on a user's talk page, the way you did with me. When you did that and saved the change, it showed that I had a new message. It's very much like posting to an article's talk page (on the discussion tab at the top of each article's page).

As for editing a locked page, I looked at Evolution and didn't see it was locked. You should be able to edit it. Read through the page first, to see if there are already pages or sections for macro, micro and so on. Some pages are locked to prevent editing by new or anonymous users. Often this is done to prevent vandalizing them.

And adding a user's page to your watch list is sort of like adding as a friend. It would update your watchlist with any changes made to either my talk to user pages. There are various welcoming committees and such, including:

• Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User
• Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign
• Wikipedia:Concordia
• Wikipedia:Esperanza

Oh yes, and one good habit to get into is to sign posts on talk pages.--EarthPerson 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

China Center of Adoption Affairs

Hi. I see that you're the sole editor for China Center of Adoption Affairs. Could you provide references or even just a brief comment on its talk page explaining why this is a notable organization per WP:N? --Ronz 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I've added some references on China Center of Adoption Affairs as it relates to international adoption to the US. I also added the globalize tag and explained on the talk page that I hope that the article grows to have parts on the CCAA's three main responsibilities (domestic adoption, international adoption and Chinese social welfare institutes). I can't seem to find much on adoption to other the countries from China, but these would all go through the CCAA. I've not looked for articles on the growing number of Chinese adopted abroad, but there must be something about it. After all, there is a whole generation that will grow up to be the lost daughters of China, not unlike the Lost Generation of the Cultural Revolution. Does the article meet the notable requirement? Please tell me what you think. I'd like to see the article grow and eventually split off an article on International Adoption from China or similar and others if needed. Thanks. --EarthPerson 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Great work! --Ronz 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

w00t! Thanks!  :-D --EarthPerson 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)