User talk:Duncharris/archive8

Chris Johnson

Can you watch for vandalism on Chris Johnson please? Fanny Addams 20:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi there Dunc. I know you're an admin, but I'm concerned at your method of enforcing edit count rules on the VfD for Tom G. Palmer. The WP:VfD page does not say there is an edit count limit and it is frequently pointed out that there is not. Votes should not be invalidated on that basis until an admin comes to close the VfD. I'm also concerned at your comment on Nskinsella's talk page which basically says "we don't want you here". That account was made in April so isn't a sockpuppet, presumably, though does appear to be acting in a reverse meat-puppet fashion. That doesn't really justify quite such a venomous comment on their talk page, though. I was especially taken aback by the "let the regulars do it" bit — that's just not how a Wiki works! I don't want socks/meats around any more than you, but inventing edit count rules and leaving unpleasant messages doesn't seem like the best way to do things. Also, although I am president of a technology firm in Florida, editor for a regional news web site, and deeply involved in Florida politics. My areas of expetise are Tampa Bay Area history, computers and networking, and Florida politics. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2005. is red and low on edits, they have another, entirely unrelated, article TampaBayStart.com on Vfd and so are unlikely to be either a meat or a sock. Their talk page currently say that they are trying to work this whole thing out: scaring them off isn't the thing to do. So, I've moved those two votes back into the thick of things, adn the closing admin can do the deed. The others are pretty blatant, however. -Splash 01:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Wilfred Stamp, 2nd Baron Stamp, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

VfD: Consistency

You voted to Keep Tom G. Palmer. Perhaps you should visit Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2 (and Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2) and consider how you should vote on this page, applying your standards used for the Palmer vote. Nskinsella 01:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't pester me. Dunc|☺ 09:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

British and Irish Lions

It is certainly not my intention to be destructive and I absolutely reject your accusation that I have been. Each change that I have made to this page has been carefully considered and is in the spirit of Wikipedia. I am a Sports Journalist, a member of the Sports Journalists Association and a reporter on Rugby. As such I would defend any and all of the improvements that I have made to the page. You perhaps know little about this subject – I do, and I am prepared to defend my corner.

Vagoo up for deletion

Hi Duncharris, thank you for your email.

Since you decided to discount all of the keep messages, I would like to ask why you discounted mine as well, since I am not a newcomer and have been coming to Wikipedia for almost a year. I recently setup my account, but I have been making suggestions for updating information on webcomics, and other comic books for some time now as an annonymous.

Since you moved my vote to the 'discounted' section, I would appreciate it if you moved it back. Furthermore, the consistant use of sockpuppet by the community on newcomers is very distressing, as it goes against Wikipedia's policy on the treatment of newcomers. If this article is indeed deleted, I have every intention of petitioning for undeletion, and will be making a complaint about the lashing out by the community to newcomers who simply want to give this article a chance to grow.

Thanks for your time, and again thanks for the email.

--Arcidius 12:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dunc, if the article is deleted, then it's a shame, but that's fine. My main problem is what I'm seeing as an attack on newcomers (sockpuppets). And the fact that my vote was discounted by you. Also, I was not the author of this article, I've just edited some mistakes on it. If I was the author, I would not have voted as I agree with your stance that the author should not vote on his own article.

I do have a question that hopefully you could answer, as I'm not quite sure how to go about it. If the article is deleted, I would like to have the just of it moved over to Wiktionary. If I do this after the eventual deletion does it get chased after by the deleters? Or should I put a request in on the vote page?

ie. "Wiktionary" is a shorthand for "Keep and submit to the transwiki scheme for moving to Wiktionary" --Arcidius 13:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 2

I don't really understand why you deleted the new version of the Stephan Kinsella article. Apparently, Willmcw had restored the edit history, but the version that was up for deletion was (supposedly) new. I don't see why it was speedied. Could you explain in more detail on the VfD page? - Nat Krause 13:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

But, if the article in question was a new text at the same title, shouldn't it have a separate VfD? - Nat Krause 13:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I am quite surprised by what you did. This looks like an abuse of your powers as administrator. On which grounds do you think "[ Nskinsella ] recreated it to illustrate a point, thus disrupting Wikipedia." It seems to me that Nskinsella acted in good faith and write a better article. It deserves proper consideration. If you can, please revert the undeletion. --Edcolins 13:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The voting and consideration process was going on and you cut it short by just deleting my piece. This seems unfair and an abuse to me. At the very least, I would appreciate it if someone could send me the most recent version of my now-deleted entry so I can put it on my user page, in case the deletion is upheld. Or please restore it somehow temporarily at least, somewhere, where I can see the last version which someoen else had added content to. Please email me the version at nskinsella -at- gmail.com or let me know in a comment here or on my user page User:Nskinsella where I can find the last version of my entry. I would greatly appreciate this. As well as a reconsideration by Duncharris of whether his speedy delete is fair. I was indeed acting in good faith and had improved the article, and another user had also edited it, so it was being improved, and the votes were not yet concluded. --Nskinsella 13:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Duncharris: I have just posted a reply to you here: User_talk:Nskinsella#Your_vanity_page. As I noted there, if you could explain to me why my page is being deleted even though I apparently clearly meet the criteria, I would appreciate it. if you have any suggestions as to improvement of my Wikiquette, I would be open to hearing it. --Nskinsella 14:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet drawer

Have you noticed how many sockpuppets are politely jumping right into the box you created for them at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vagoo? What nice manners they have.  :-) Joyous (talk) 16:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

what is to be cleaned in the CG_tools page?

Thanks for giving some hints about why you tagged the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CG_tools as "to be cleaned" (with the comment "this is horrible") since the pages "How to Edit" and "Style and How-to" do not help me to guess what you did not like.

My assumption is that you did not like the tables but it is the whole point of this page that it is mostly composed of tables (and this kind of tables) in order to permit tool comparison.

Regards,

Philippe

Stockport cricket club

Undeletion policy reads in part:

• If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it.

Therefore, you should know that Stockport cricket club has been speedy undeleted due to your deletion of it out of process. Since the VfD result was no consensus, it was inappropriate for the article to be deleted. Also, from the Deletion guidelines for administrators, #3 says "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it."

Please do not delete pages that you have nominated in VfD. Especially those that failed to gain consensus to delete. -- Jonel | Speak 12:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Test

Welcome!

Hello, Duncharris/archive8, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question, 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!  Dunc|☺ 14:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln

Why did you move Lincoln, Lincolnshire back to Lincoln? Per the consensus at Talk:Lincoln/Vote, it was decided that Lincoln should be a disambiguation page. I undid the move. Rhobite 18:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oh I didn't see that. Lincoln should be about the city in Lincolnshire though. Shame you noticed really. Dunc|☺ 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How petty. Per your logic, it's good that you didn't notice the poll. Please leave the page where it is. Rhobite 19:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, my wikistress levels are too high already. Of course I shall respect consensus and not move it, unless at some point in a few years I forget about the said consensus and move it again... ;) Dunc|☺ 19:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

to: admin

Dear Admin,

I looked all over and could not see how to change my username. I know you don't know how to do it either.

I will creat a new acount and feel free to delete the old one. Also, if you just want to let it die a natural death that is fine. I have no plan on using that account except to read further messages from you and it will eventually die off I am sure.

Second, I wrote some additional comments in the discussion page. If you could be so kind to read them it would be appreciated.

Third, how does the consensus work? Majority rules? How do you know if there is a majority? I am very unclear about this.

Fourth, if someone changes my work and I change it back is that forbidden? In short, how do I know the consensus has ruled. I am guessing by the discussion page.

Fifth, is the discussion page for debating. does a person have to justify their complaint. I ask becuase it seem the "bias" complaint wasn't justified. It seems the user was claiming irrelevancy but he never claimed why it was irrelevant (please see my additional comments in the discussion page).

to: admin

Dear Admin,

I looked all over and could not see how to change my username. I know you don't know how to do it either.

I will creat a new acount and feel free to delete the old one. Also, if you just want to let it die a natural death that is fine. I have no plan on using that account except to read further messages from you and it will eventually die off I am sure.

Second, I wrote some additional comments in the discussion page. If you could be so kind to read them it would be appreciated.

Third, how does the consensus work? Majority rules? How do you know if there is a majority? I am very unclear about this.

Fourth, if someone changes my work and I change it back is that forbidden? In short, how do I know the consensus has ruled. I am guessing by the discussion page.

Fifth, is the discussion page for debating. does a person have to justify their complaint. I ask becuase it seem the "bias" complaint wasn't justified. It seems the user was claiming irrelevancy but he never claimed why it was irrelevant (please see my additional comments in the discussion page).

to admin

Dear Admin,

I looked all over and could not see how to change my username. I know you don't know how to do it either.

I will creat a new acount and feel free to delete the old one. Also, if you just want to let it die a natural death that is fine. I have no plan on using that account except to read further messages from you and it will eventually die off I am sure.

Second, I wrote some additional comments in the "Darwin's illness" discussion page. If you could be so kind to read them it would be appreciated.

Third, how does the consensus work? Majority rules? How do you know if there is a majority? I am very unclear about this.

Fourth, if someone changes my work and I change it back is that forbidden? In short, how do I know the consensus has ruled. I am guessing by the discussion page but again how do I know there is consensus?

Fifth, is the discussion page for debating. Does a person have to justify their complaint. I ask becuase it seem the "bias" complaint wasn't justified. It seems the user was claiming irrelevancy but he never claimed why it was irrelevant (please see my additional comments in the aforementioned discussion page).

to: admin

TO: Admin

A few things:

1. I figured out how to change my username. I put in a request.

2. You said if something is controversial discuss it on talk first. What is talk?

3. I looked at your material for "young earth creationism". A huge section is titled "Arguments against creationism" yet there is no place for arguments for it. This seems to go againt your NPOV rule. I also do not see writers attempt to take the other side like I did in the various aspects of my "Darwin's illness" piece. Has anyone complained about this and put it to a vote? If they did, what happened?

to: duncadmin

TO: Dunc, admin

I thank you for your help while I am a novice in regards to policies and procedures. I think we should agree to disagree on the YEC issue. I did review the YEC page and it appears to be more neutral than I had originally thought. I think we both agree neutrality is important if Wikipedia is to be seen as a good source of information.

Speedy Delete of VfD Entries

Hello Duncharris!

I have noticed that you speedy deleted some articles that were in VfD like Frank Tyger and Centerfuse but did not close the discussion in the VfD Log. It seems to be common practice to warn the voters that the articles were speedied, which saves us some time in examining them and trying to figure out what happened.

Thanks!

Poli (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

to: duncadmin

to duncadmin

I do log in. I sign in. Perhaps a firewall prevents it from being registered by wikipedia. Perhaps I am not doing a extra procedure. Nonetheless I have been identifying my post as kdbuffalo.

Lastly, is it a rule you must log in. If memory serves, one wikipedia member says it is not required.

to: duncadmin

TO: duncadmin

I went to the tech assistance page an unfortunately I am not technically proficient enough to resolve the log in matter. I am also going to continue to follow the policies about being neutral in my post.

Langer

Hi, I've re-opened this vfd because it was speedied for an improper reason. There has never been a vfd result to delete this article. Instead there was a transwiki vote. Since the article patently isn't deletion material by any stretch of the imagination, I think it's as well to give it due process. We can put it to bed after a five-day lag time. Speedying it on the day of nomination is just silly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo

I'd keep a close eye on him. I have been lately as well. -- BRIAN0918  21:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush

While I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment, I'm not sure it will be counted as a "vote" - perhaps you could clarify your position as to the VfD? -- BD2412 ^talk 01:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's MY site!!

Just an FYI, http://www.billybishop.net is MY site.Al Lowe

• Thanks for putting my article back. And thanks for the editing you did.Al Lowe

Glacier proposal

As you may have noticed, there has been a recent disagreement over how articles are translated for Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week. I have proposed a solution here. I would appreciate your input, so we can create a solution. — J3ff 02:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You´re awfully clever

But maybe you forgot to read WP:POINT.

Benwing 04:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm clever, but what on earth are you talking about? Dunc|☺ 11:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Your renaming of my "Standardize ..." article to "Standardise ..." and snarky comments about "or should that be 'propoze'"? Benwing 03:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

World Community Grid

Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.'

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, [[User: Mark83|Mark83]] 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Significant objections have been raised to this. Mark83 10:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with ROSETTA and "folding at home" because I'm a bioinformatician but unfortunately I do not have an Internet connection at home so I cannot run any of your software, although I will try to remember to do so when I do get an Internet connection. Dunc|☺ 13:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clairfy it isn't "my software". I just chose to download and run it myself from the website, that's the height of my involvement in the project.Mark83 18:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Badusername

I think this is equivalent to Template:Usernameblock, so I'm going to redirect. FreplySpang (talk) 20:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

aargh. I knew it was somewhere! Dunc|☺ 20:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [1] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of evolution

In fact, evidence of evolution (or evidence for evolution? I'm not sure) appears in most introductory books about evolution. In the main article of evolution, only a little evidence was raised. I think a more comprehensive picture is desirably needed in this point. It's not history — just approaches to show the existance of evolutionary processes in different scientific aspects. Btw, the horse evolution, as you've mentioned, is a typical palaeontological example for evolution; the section is already a trimmed-down version, and it seems ok by me. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

TelAvivKid (ProudWHITEIsraeli

Sorry to bother you but TelAvivKid (formerly ProudWHITEIsraeli) Is being awfully abusive on the Israeli terrorism VfD page. Could you try to talk some sense into him? --LouieS 16:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for putting that ont eh mediation page, I went to you because I knew you had blocked him. I'm a little new here, didn't know quite where to put this sort of thing! --LouieS 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Appleton's Cyclopedia

Any citation for the remark about Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography at Nihilartikel? Not that I doubt it, but it seems the sort of thing that should be cited. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Eric Gilder VfD

Hi, I noticed you voted keep in the VfD for Eric Gilder (professor). Just wanted to direct your attention to the VfD's for the other related pages:

• Four Freedoms Federation - (talk) - (VfD)
• Province of the Carolanas - (talk) - (VfD)
• John Lilburne Research Institute - (talk) - (VfD)

They are all vanity/non-notable/hoax/original research by the same user (MPLX), and rapidly speeding toward deletion. Just thought you may want to reconsider your vote on this page. --JW1805 20:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy a science?

I am replying to a message you left on one of my pages entitled Monamihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monami . I take on board your suggestion that Wikipedia is not free web hosting.However,the implication was that my posting had not added anything and was my own philosophy.I had a question.Is philosophy not a science? Has Philosophy over the ages,not provided insights and clues to most important future discoveries? Surely,a philosophy is the springboard for free thought and kateral thinkinng? A Edward de Bono mentions in his book on lateral thinking, by jumping into an already dug hole and start digging, we will become adept at digging the same hole.It may be a better alternative to start digging another hole.One may find another path to the solution which may be better than the already formulated thought structures.

As such, does my entry not add to the philosophical content of Wikipedia?

I would appreciate your comments and anyone elses on this.

Mendel's photo deletion

Hi, could you check out these discussions I am having with the administrators Violetriga and Zscout370. I think both were tricked into deleting the mendel pictures but violetriga seems a bit offended by the suggestion? Am I missing something here. i am relatively new here so i don't want to rock the boat too much. David D. 16:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't redirect articles anyhow...please...

Don't redirect Fuhua Sec...to Singapore...please...thank you...Tdxiang 12:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Primary education in third world countries

You sarcastically commented that "WP must be one of the, er, finest resources anywhere if you want to know about primary school education in a random third world country" [2]. I find the implication that "random third world countries" are less worthy of our attention very offensive. On the other hand, that is exactly the sort of thing wikipedia should aspire to being, so I'm glad that it is part of the way there. Kappa 19:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me as though he is dimissive of school articles in general rather than taking a pot shot at third world countries. Think about this, if we have every high school teacher (plus their photo) and school from every country in the world would WP be a useful resource? If we select a random country and find most of the articles are on high schools what does that say about that country? There are many holes in wikipedia, too many to be focusing on highschools and their teachers. Maybe someone should create a separate Wikischools pedia to cope with this problem of clutter. David D. 20:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, maybe Singapore isn't "third world". The Cabal for unconditional keeps has really fucked up the deletion process on *unnotable* schools. Mind you if we start a wikischools, we need to star a wiki donut shops and wiki patches of spare land too. Dunc|☺ 15:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In my mind wikischools would be equivalent to the trash can. Since we're not allowed to throw the trash out then we just buy a bigger can. I'd be happy for wiki donuts and wiki real estate to be housed in the same can. Wikitrash anyone? David D. (Talk) 16:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

POV additions on British and Irish Lions

MacRusgail keeps vandalising British and Irish Lions articles with Celt nationalist conspiracy theories. He really doesn't seem to care about NPOV at all. Could you take a look please?

Additionally I've just been IP banned accidently could you please unblock me?GordyB 19:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

A little praise...

...for a job nicely done here. I liked the way a ranting ranter was stopp ed (or at least put off for a time, let's be realistic) through proper channels. Good style. --InterwikiLinksRule 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Stockport cricket club

I don't think the votes should be combined. So I make it 9-7 in favour of deletion. No consensus.

Delete

1. Dunc
2. smoddy
3. Dcarrano
4. DES
5. Nandesuka
6. R. fiend
7. JamesBurns
8. Radiant
9. Squash

Neutral

1. Calton

Keep

1. Kappa
2. jguk
3. Sjakkalle
4. CalJW
5. Sam Vimes
6. Jonel
7. Tony Sidaway

Eugene van der Pijll 21:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No.

I don't think I should combine the votes. That would mean copying votes from one vote to the other, which is too close to putting words in other peoples' mouth.

Even if I would, "merge" votes are counted as "keep"; your keep count is missing jguk from the second vote and RHaworth from the first; you have miscounted Robdurbar, who voted "keep"; and if I were to reopen the vote, I'd then vote "keep" myself before closing it again, just because I think renominations should be discouraged.

That would make the combined score of the two votes 16-11 in favour of deletion: no consensus. Again.

But I'm not going to do that. Eugene van der Pijll 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm a physicist. Eugene van der Pijll 21:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Locomotives of the Midland Railway

"Prior to 1883 painted green. After 1883 the Midland adopted its distinctive crimson lake livery for passenger engines, with unliked black for goods engines."

Is this right? Or should it be 'unlined black'?

Locomotives of the Midland Railway

"Prior to 1883 painted green. After 1883 the Midland adopted its distinctive crimson lake livery for passenger engines, with unliked black for goods engines."

Is this right? Or should it be 'unlined black'?

Please unprotect Template:Delete

I am renaming all the speedy deletion templates to fit a common pattern as was discussed in the TfD of {{nn-bio}} (now {{db-bio}}). Can you please unprotect Template:Delete which I see you protected, long enough for me to do this? DES ^(talk) 19:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[double post]

quick apology

I'm sorry for my edit on "evolution," in it's redundancy; I think the page load messed and some text was corrupted and I didn't see, or who knows what, but whatever happened, thank you for deletion, for it would have been redundant; there is enough at the beginning of the article, explaining evolution is theory.

I only advise you to be more careful before accuing anyone of "vandalism" or "nonesense." That is very strong and wikipedia itself can define what they mean. I do not and cannot accuse you or say anyitnh about thing like overreacting, or harshness, because I cannot know, but I only want to point out that my edit was redundancy, not vandalism.

thank you

moves of speedy delete tempaltes

The reson i am moving the speedy deletion tempaltes is to make all the actual names have the same prefix. This will make them sort together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, as requested by several people during the recent TfD debate on these tempaltes. I am fixing all the double redirs as fast as I can, i think i have them all fixed now. All the existing names are left as normal redirs. Does that clarify things a bit? DES ^(talk) 23:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

outside opinion

Hi, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this poll . As an outside observer your opinion would be useful in helping resolve an edit conflict. --Gene_poole 01:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition point of view

I posted something on the NPOV talk page and on village pump asking for clarification about the SPOV policy. The argument going on the Creation Science page seems to be arguing that the "definition point of view" is correct and undisputed, and therefore the article can declare as fact that Creation Science is not science. It would seem to me that since CS has a different view of the definition of science that it must be presented as a view, and that the mainstream science definition of the word must be presented as a view. Am I missing something about NPOV? FuelWagon 15:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Schools

• Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Duveneck School (2nd Nom.). This elementary school is equally as non-notable as Palo Alto Montessori School.Gateman1997 18:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling

Hi - I hope you don't mind that I replaced the image you uploaded to the "Scales and gauges" section - it really didn't belong there. You could write a section about collectibles, and include the photo there. --Janke | Talk 16:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Loughborough

Hey, I noticed you've uploaded some pictures of Loughborough. I'm considering moving there to do a post-doctoral next year or so. Do you attend the university? If so, I could use some perspective on the town, university, etc. Ed Sanville 07:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info... do you know anything about the housing market there, is it tight? Ed Sanville 03:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Derby Railway Works

Surely Derby Works should redirect to Derby Railway Works? Not the way it now is. All the links are to the latter. Also Derby Works could be Derby Rolls Royce Works which maybe someone will get round to writing some time. Regards Chevin 16:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Some time ago the page on Derby Works was moved to one with the more descriptive title of Derby Railway Works, and a redirect put on Derby Works. You seem to have swapped this around. May I ask why? Chevin 17:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Dash it

The horizontal line isn't necessary, of course, but it serves the purpose of marking off the dablink from the article. When I raised this at the relevant template Talk page, there was no objection to using it (though it can't be added to the template, because sometimes multiples instances are used). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be multiple-use instances, but there are — and changing the template would immediately make a lot of pages look very strange. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Dave Berges

OK, when the text no longer matches the text in the potential copyvio article, why did you revert it to copyvio? Please put something on the Talk page when you do this. You did not put anything there either time - I even posted questions. It is clearly not the same words as the potential copyvio, so I really don't understand why you reverted without comment. --Habap 18:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting to the reworded version. --Habap 19:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sternberg Page

Dear collaborator,

I do not think your dealing with this article abide by the principles of wikipedia.

If you want to extend the ad-hominem attack upon this man you will have to justify it. But do not just raise the charge without justification.

The article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" is not an article on creationism. erasmocbc 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, why delete the external links with information on Sternberg and the controversy. The Washington Post, and the Wallstreet Journal are both reputable sources. Is there any reason not to include these in a fair presentation of this case. Further more. You have not justified your changes in the discussion page or seek consensus before changing it. Is wiki a means for abuse? or for fair presentation of information?

erasmocbc 20:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is documented by the Washington Post that Sternberg was treated badly. This fits perfectly with Thomas Kuhn's incommensurable paradigm thesis. There is nothing wrong with these edits.

I've reported your inability to stomach informational edits to a mediator.

The page, as it stood, was incorrect. It stated that there were no peer-reviewed articles published when, in fact, there were at least two. Indeed, the page itself goes on to name the two peer-reviewed articles that have been published - a clear contradiction of its own statement.

Furthermore, the Washington Post article documents that existing bias was found in the Sternberg case. All I'm doing is correcting the mistake concerning peer-reviewed articles and inserting the information from the WP article to substantiate the bias.

I fail to see how this constitutes an unacceptable POV. In most discussions, this would be called, "supporting evidence."

Clarifying votes

Hi, I've been marking low-edit votes on the VfD for Flying Spaghetti Monster, and noticed something you might want to correct: you remembered to clearly sign your vote. However, you seem to have forgotten to record which way you were voting. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I expect that

You will have to go to bed before I do. I will put it back again you know, we should have a reasoned debate about the issue here. There are twice as many links intended to go to Halifax, NS as there are going to Halifax, WL going to the Halifax page. It is bad wiki to do what you are doing without discussion. WayeMason 19:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

What/

Look at the links, man, Halifax has been linked to Halifax, Nova Scotia for most of the time I have been on reading and using wiki. Am I wrong? I did not make the redirect go to Halifax, Nova Scotia. I am just restoring your change.

Anyway, at the least ,you could enter into some DISCUSSION about it. Wiki wants us to be BOLD but RESPECTFUL. There are TWO people posting to Halifax WY page complaining or commenting on the redirect to your page... people have issues. You should engage the people on our side of the pond and see if we can come to concensus, rather than just continuing as you are.WayeMason 19:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that name calling is particularly good wiki. I expect better than 'ignorant fools' from an Englishman. WayeMason 19:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. The fact is that the Halifax in Canada; by virtue of its status as an important seaport and largest city in Atlantic Canada, is the most important city named such. It sure as heck is more imporant within Canada than Halifax WL is within the UK (it's what, the 3rd largest city in its COUNTY?). Think of it this way: The Boston in England may have been the original, but does it get priority over Boston, Massachusetts? Kirjtc2 21:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

12.203.22.146 (talk · contribs)

Hi, I saw your comment on the Da Vinci Code page. It seems very likely that 12.203.22.146 (talk · contribs) is Steve Kellmeyer, an author of Catholic polemical booklets published by his own company. He has created a very autobiographical-sounding article on Kellmeyer and separate articles on Kellmayer's various publications, along with articles on the topics they discuss, with links to Kellmayer's press's website. Having looked at the art historical material he uses I wouldn't trust the accuracy of his material on other other aspects of history. Paul B 12:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

you may wish to know that the above contributer has been commenting on you on the Da Vinci Code talk page. Paul B 10:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

FSM VFD

I saw you close this vfd, but you forgot to sign you closed it at the top and you didn't use subst: on the closing tags which causes them to be loaded each time they're requested. Please use subst: in the future when closing debates. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Derby Works

It was RFJR (I think) who renamed Derby Works to Derby Railway Works for me. Now they go round in circles, and the article I put up this morning has gone (Its a good thing I keep an off-line copy) I'm more than a little p***d offChevin 15:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Are you telling me RFJR didn't do it right? Chevin 15:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Inside York Minster

Duncharris, I've now GFDL-ed the picture taken inside York Minster. Thanks for making me aware of this.

You must be a keen photographer yourself, judging from the pictures on your page.

-Bala

Theory vs. Law

Pls chime in on the discussion of what is a stronger statement about the natural world on Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy. Thanks. --JPotter 21:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sad

The smileys are from an open source instant messaging package. I have corrected the tags and provided links to the specific source. They do not appear to be a copyright problem now that the tags are correct. Dragons flight 14:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

MDT

Hi Dunc. With regard to your comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Multiple Designers Theory, I have updated the Multiple Designers Theory article to put things in context. While it may change your comments on VfD, this is definitely not a plug to change your vote. Noisy | Talk 12:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

debate link on Ken Miller page

I added one link to the Kenneth R. Miller page. I am very new to Wikipedia but I thought it was very relevant. It is the 1997 Firing Line debate where Ken Miller is prominent. The link disappeared.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm

Phil P

Template:vfd3

As long as you're edit warring to keep links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/foo out of Template:vfd anyway, could you stop by Template:vfd3 and make it match? Repairing every third vfd nomination is starting to get tiresome. Thanks. —Cryptic (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rather, could you please leave them be for now and join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion? So far consensus has been either to favor the rename or to say "we don't care but it's a lot of work". If you have good reasons for opposing the change we'd be happy to hear them. Radiant_>|< 08:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't blindly revert, but join the discussion. I've already spoken to Ta bu and he seems to agree with the general sentiment behind the change. Radiant_>|< 12:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, and it has a consensus favoring the change. The change is being made gradually so shouldn't upset anything; in fact the only thing that's upsetting the process is the revert war over the template. Radiant_>|< 12:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Please read again. In particular, the section "Consensus to do anything at all". The discussion has been flooded with reactions, and very few objections - and most of those are simply that it would be lot of work, which is kind of irrelevant as long as we have people volunteering to do it. Radiant_>|< 12:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Coolata

Hi, Dunc. Normally, I'd have blown the original version of that article clear out of the water, but I'm trying to use it as a means to teach the original author, namely User:Maoririder. Could I impose on you to restore it? I do plan on expanding it somewhat, again, as a teaching aid. Back in about an hour...thanks much. Best, Lucky 6.9 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Dunc, you are a gem. Thank you so much. I'll tweak that substub more when I get back to the office. - Lucky 6.9 21:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis entry

I'm sorry I think I deleted your "importance" tag for the Robert Sungenis entry. I didn't know what that was. Sungenis is a crank when it comes to science (geocentrism), but I am a fan of his Catholic apologetics books. I hope I was neutral in my re-edit.

Phil P

Evolutionary Creationism = Theistic Evolution

I noticed there are two separate entries for evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution, but they were virtually identical in content. I added a bit to the theistic evolution article (more examples of theistic evolutionists: Ken Miller, Keith Miller, Keith Ward, Rev. Polkinghorne, Darrel Falk, Fr. George Coyne, Lamoureux, etc), and added material from St. Augustine and Pope John Paul II on the interpretation of Genesis. I would suggest making "evolutionary creationism" (EC) forward to "theistic evolution" (TE) or vice versa. I think the preferred and more well-known term is "theistic evolution" so the EC one should probably redirect to TE article. Hope my edits make sense and are neutral.

PhilVaz 13:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is no one listening to me?

[User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns] Duncharris, if you go the "speedy deletions" page, the "user talk" concerning the speedy deletions page and finally my own user talk, you will find my repeated (and very unambiguous) requests to have my user page deleted for reasons that I carefully outlined on the speedy deletions page. If you are concerned with preserving some tiny shred of justice on this site, please inform those in charge of this site of my requests, or-better still-send my requests directly to the "webmasters". For one thing, because of the old "censorship" controversy (I being the vilified "Political Correctness Pusher"), I am widely hated and slandered on Wikipedia, whereas you seem to be on good terms with most other users. For another, perhaps, as a more experienced user, you may know some way to make the top brass on this site listen to me that I don't. Thank you.

Sorry, Duncharris

[User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns] I guess that part of this was simple error on my part. To the best of my knowledge, there are several references to Felix F. Bruyns on Wikipedia, since in web searches I still find old accusations calling me a "troll", a "vandal" and falsely accusing me of "copyvio". I wish that someone would eliminate those, as well as the use of my name (at least as of a few weeks ago) on a pro-marijuana website (I never visited the site but I saw it on the Google listings for the search "Felix F. Bruyns"). I guess that what I am really asking is how to delete my own user accounts, and, equally important, how to destroy old garbage that slanders my reputation across the Internet. I am sorry for confusing you, Duncharris. I'm ignorant but well-intentioned.

FYI, the "pro-marijuana website" is a wkikipedia mirror that puts a pro MJ header over copies of pages from here. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I worked that out. Dunc|☺ 22:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Name Changing

[User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns] In a side note I forgot to mention in my last message, I have no desire to change my name and never did. I once wanted to change Wikipedia, but since I see that that is impossible I merely want my name not to be associated with it or the false accusations made against me on it. I am about to edit some old archives now. That's all for the moment.

Thank you

I am definitely a baby Wikepedian. I am not even entirely sure who you are. Did you find me because of the External Link I added to the Creation Science article?

Bhurlburt 00:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Viruses

--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns Duncharris, as an experienced Wikipedia user do you know whether there is a virus running around the site? Please send me an answer. Thank you very much.

Girls Aloud

I've identified them for you, *shame*. The anon IP putting the name on the Commons images was also me. Proto t c 10:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

from kdbuffalo to duncharris

I see you reverted the changes I made to Biblical scientific foreknowledge. You did not give an explanation though. I felt that mickwest was acting unreasonable. His material was front and center but he demanded that my material be buried in long documents through footnotes. For example, Egyptians using fly bits in medicine etc. I think Wikipedia material should be easily accessible, and footnoted and supported. I believe I did that. Please do not make reverts like you did. I am reasonable and I expect reasonableness from those who differ from me in regards to making page changes.

We have been able to work out our differences by in large. I hope this continues. I do believe I worked hard on the Bible scientific foreknowledge area and ask that my well supported material be treated just like any other well supported material. I will ask another admin who I believe is reasonable to intercede in this matter if unreasonable actions occur on the other side of the aisle but I hope it does not.

ken 17:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to duncharris

I will take you up on your offer to intercede as a admin.

Duncharris was the admin who was hassling me. I think he did this because our views differed. For example, when I made changes to my userpage he sent me notes about this pretty much back to back. I think when I finish my business with someone I should be allowed to clear my userpage.

He also repeatedly told me about CreationWiki which I didn't think it was his place to do. I felt it was like him telling me to go elsewhere. I did make some changes to the Creationism subject area which stuck and the Wikipedia community therefore felt was helpful. Thus, I believe Duncharris's telling me about CreationWiki was missplaced. I also felt he spoke about Creationism in a condescending way in my userpage whereas my communications with him excercised politeness. I realize he is an evolutionist but I saw no need to impolitely tell him my views about the evolutionary position.

Also, the Mickwest and Duncharris are trying though edits to make my material buried in long documents through footnotes and not brought out while the Mickwest material is front and center in the area Biblical scientific foreknowledge For example, if the Egyptians used fly dung and other dung a lot in their medicine (historians of medicine have called ancient Egyptian medicine "sewage pharmocology") and this can cause tetanus it should be brought out and not hid in some big document. This is the biggest area I could use your help in. If you could work this out though the mechanisms Wickipedia offers I would appreciate this. I know if someone else advocates unfairness it carries more weight than the page creator. This is the area I could use your help most in. Biblical scientific foreknowledge.

ken 17:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)kdbufffalo

to duncharris from kdbuffalo, addendum

I revised my comments to the admin I alluded to before. I think this may help the reconciliation process and make things more amicable between us if we do not do things that irritate each other in a unreasonable way. Please look at my revised post which I posted above.

ken 17:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to dunc, thank you and I am not above admitting mistakes

I saw your changes to the webpage in regards to pseudoscience. I think it reflects you read the talk page perhaps at Biblical scientific foreknowledge. I am glad you did not say that scientists regard Biblical scientific foreknowledge (BSF) as no scientific surveys about this matter were ever presented. I did some research on pseudoscience as a definition and see it is more broad than I imagined. While I do not believe BSF is pseudoscience I can see why the word could be used as a opinion, although I see this opinion as being errant.

I also appreciate you not trying to bury my material in footnotes as mickwest did. If Egyptians used fly specks and other potentially harmful material it should not be buried in footnotes. The same applies in regards to the ineffectiveness of ancient Egyptian pharmocology and other matters.

ken 18:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to dunc, quick addendum

YOu wrote:

People have already gone through biblical scientific foreknowledge and tidied up your mess, now you've gone and remade that mess. Dunc|☺

I don't believe this is true. Mickwest if memory serves is the gentleman who makes the vast majority or all of the edits to my material. I don't think it was right to do and I have explained why. I am not saying Mickwest did not make any contributions to the page. I actually liked some of the information. However, I do not believe all of his reactions to my material were valid.

ken 18:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to dunc

You wrote:

Look mate, I can respect you for not losing your rag. Now, I'm fairly clueless about this whole matter, but having dealt with a lot of creationist nonsense, I think the nonsense threshold of fundies is low. Anyway, it does seem to me that you've got these particular views and you want to promote them. Now there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you accept the NPOV policy. And the NPOV policy states who holds these views and why. Even if you disagree with someone, you have to acknowledge and try to understand their point of view. Fact is only fact if it is undisputed fact. I think you need to work together with other editors a bit more to achieve that, and try to achieve dialogue. Good luck with it. Dunc|☺ 18:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

My reply:

I am glad you respect my civility. Now I don't think you can point to a specific instance where I ever deleted someone's material due to not agreeing with them. I have removed vandalism. For example, yesterday I removed someone's post saying 33.22228403 of the world's population are Christians. I did remove the pseudoscience charge I will admit that. However, I did admit my error and said I had a overly restictive definition of the word etc. etc. etc in the talk page and said while I do not agree with this opinion (pseudoscience opinion) I do not seek to squelch opinions I see as not being true.

Thirdly, I would appreciate it if you do not use words like "fundies" or imply my views are "nonsense". I have told you to start being more polite in my revised post to you. I think you should endeavor to be polite in our exchanges. Do I call your views "nonsense"? No, I do not. You have told me you respect that. Please be more polite in your letters to me. I don't think Wickipedia admins should send rude letters to people. This has got to stop and I will see to it that it does stop. I don't want to do this. You are not leaving me much choice though and I think you will have to agree with this regrettably.

ken 18:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I revised my last post as I believe in being precise and fair and in my communications.

ken 18:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

There is a POV bias

--User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns Duncharris, read my messages to DESiegel and you will see that I am not wanting to ADD a point of view, I am only trying to delete one. The point is that I am a 20-year-old male myself, yet I see no need to write disrespectful and obscene things about women. By the way, there shouldn't even BE any articles on pornographic "actresses" in any encyclopedia. If you don't believe me, look at Britannica, Encarta, Grolier's, Webster's, Hutchinson or any other encyclopedia to see if they have any such articles. The only reason that I haven't objected to the "even worse" content is that I wouldn't even look up such a thing. Oh, and I'll try to put my messages in paragraph form, if that's some sort of Wikipedia policy.

Message on My User Talk

Did you see the obscene message that DESpiegel put on my user talk? I may need a witness for punitive measures to be taken against him, since I deleted the message and my RFC about it mysteriously disappeared. Please respond at my user talk as soon as possible. Thank you. Felix Frederick Bruyns 03:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Important Request

I found out that I sent the complaint about DESpiegel to the wrong RFC board and that's why it was deleted. But to take action about the horribly obscene message, at least two people have to contact me "attempting to resolve the conflict". You had the best chance of seeing the message, but if you didn't I assure that it would be truly obscene by almost anyone's definition. Please contact me if only as a matter of form so that I can send a message to the "user conduct" RFC board. Thank you very much. Felix Frederick Bruyns 09:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Trinity disambig.

Glad you're interested in determining a merge on the Trinity disambiguation pages, but the issue is up for a vote and consensus — take a look at Talk:Trinity (disambiguation) for how it's coming along (slow). In any case, simply removing the proposal to merge circumvents this process, so I reverted your edit. Please do cast your vote, though, since it's not something a whole lot of people will notice and I'd like as much input as possible. Thanks. Deadsalmon 06:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, nice little script for leaving messages from your User page. I like it. Deadsalmon 06:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing the merge notices to reflect your own personal opinion over a vote for consensus. You've been around on Wikipedia long enough to know that it's in poor taste; let's not turn this into an edit war. Feel free to invite others to view the page and add their vote if you feel so strongly. In any case, "don't be silly" is not a convincing argument against the merge. Deadsalmon 18:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Deadsalmon) So far, the only reasons you've advanced for your position are that it is a "silly" "daft idea" by a "newbie." This is less than compelling. In my case, I'd suggest merging as there is an education section on the main Trinity disambig, and including a redirect. This is for the interest of keeping things together into one page. Again, if you're as experienced as you claim to be, why worry about the outcome of a consensus and force through change on your own? Please be patient and wait for the outcome. Deadsalmon 19:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an appeal to Edit war would be refreshing. Deadsalmon 19:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

((copied from User talk:deadsalmon) : There! Now that wasn't so hard, was it? Thanks for the opinion. Please post it on the talk page, and if nothing else shows up in a day or two, go nuts with your edit. However, it would be far more productive to not only remove the notices, but include a notice on the original Trinity disambig page, and create one for Trinity University as well. Deadsalmon 19:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

==Repeat of Important Request== Could you please send either a mediating or a token message to my user talk regarding DESpiegel's unsolicited, obscene message? Thank you very much. I want to lodge an RFC "user conduct" complaint against him as soon as possible. Felix Frederick Bruyns 18:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

==Notice from Felix Frederick Bruyns== I'm deleting every message with any of MY references to Moriori from both my user talk page and YOURS, so please be forewarned. You're not being vandalized. I'm just trying to make peace with Moriori once and for all. Thank you very much. Felix Frederick Bruyns 01:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Question re. possible RfC

Hi, Dunc! Need your sagely wisdom and advice.

Ddespie@san.rr.com is, IMO, sorely overdue for an RfC. This person, who simply never responds to anybody, continues to post really strange half-truths about kiddie-related stuff, as you know. Tregoweth suggested to me that you might be willing to support an RfC. If you'd be willing to help me, might I ask you to guide me on how to start? I've never filed one before. Thanks! - Lucky 6.9 03:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll try e-mailing him/her, but the user name doesn't resolve to a valid e-mail address. The concerns aren't so much the good edits as they are the half-formed an sometimes totally untrue ones that have been driving poor Tregoweth out of his mind. - Lucky 6.9 16:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Pseudoscience

Hey, don't worry! I agree that pseudoscience is a useful category and if there were a vote to delete it I would vote keep. I'm only re-classifying articles which don't belong there (because putting them there would be extremely POV).

--wayland 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well... by now, of course, I've had time to see you didn't merely question some of my edits but actually reverted a whole block of them including taking "Numerology" out of the "Numerology" category. Now that's just emotional reacting, not reasoned or thoughtful. If you look at the talk page for the pseudoscience category you'll see there's considerable dissatisfaction with the way the category has been used. There's nothing wrong with putting "Pseudo-mathematics" in a "pseudo-science" category but putting many of the other articles in was just prejudice and shouldn't have happened in the first place. --wayland 18:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I read the discussion and I see that pseudoscience is regarded as POV. Given the category has not been deleted is there a debate as to whether numerology is NOT regarded as psudoscience? It was not mentioned in the discussion at all. Surely, at least, it should be included in the numerology category. What is the rationale for removing it from the that category? David D. (Talk) 19:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't make logical sense to categorise items according to what they'rw not regarded as. Numerology is not regarded as an apple, an orange or a grapefruit but there is no logical reason to mention these facts in either the article or the discussion. I've got to rush off to work now for 8 hours but I'll continue replying when I get back. Before i go I'd just like to make it clear I'm not a believer in numerology, astrology, creationism or any of these subjects, however I am a believer in logic rather than prejudice. Anyway, gotta go... --wayland 23:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I've copy-pasted the pseudoscience discussion from here to my talk page so that both halves of the argument will be in one place and easier to follow. Please look at User talk:Wayland to see why I'm convinced some items have been wrongly categorised in Category:Pseudoscience --wayland 11:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

schoolcruft image

Please do not vandalize Wikipedia images, such as Image:Benjamin Cory Elementary School billboard.jpg. Bahn Mi 01:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

bye bye schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 01:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not modify my comments, as you have done on this talk page. [3] The image will be kept since it is clearly encyclopedic. Bahn Mi 01:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Locked Robert Sungenis?

Did you lock the Robert Sungenis page?

You locked two identical pages. I have requested an unlock.Truth_Seeker 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Welcome

Hello, Duncharris! I have a quick question for you: why did you remove the two commas in Template:Welcome? I beleive that they are grammatically necessary, because you (the person who is welcoming a new user) is addressing the new user (the {{PAGENAME}} ); thus, the commas are needed to separate the addressee of the message from the main clause. I've gone ahead and added them back in, but please let me know if I'm wrong or if you disagree. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Cricket poetry

Henry Newbolt died in 1938. Isn't that sufficient time ? Tintin 00:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I added 75 to 1938 and got 2003 ! Is it okay to add just the first paragraph ? Tintin 00:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I had added them in my head and got 2003. I meant it as a joke :-\ Thanks. Tintin 00:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

No fair use is allowed here. See Commons:Fair use Duncharris 15:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite understanding which things are legal on some sites and not on commons. Unfortunately, the link you gave me didn't work. Can you please give me a working link so I can try to figure it out ? StuRat 01:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

PNG format

Oh and can you also use png format for diagrams with lots of straight lines please? They're better than pngs. Also, gifs aren't technically free, because they have patents on them, though they're not enforced. Dunc|☺ 12:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I use Microsoft Paint and Canon Photo for image processing, and neither can save in PNG format (at least the versions I have). Do you have some free software that will convert a GIF or JPG into a PNG ? StuRat 12:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The LZW patent on GIFs expired in 2003 & 2004 (depending on country). There is now no reason why they shouldn't be considered free [4], however PNG is technically a better file format, so I agree that they should be used chowells 00:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

calm down

First calm down. Take any major changes to talk pages first, and don't be so aggressive. Dunc|☺ 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 10:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

'fertile offspring' in 'natural selection'

Hiya, I thought adding 'fertile offspring' to the natural selection page was a constructive edit. What am I missing? -Cheers Pete.Hurd 00:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I see your point. "survive and reproduce" does imply that the offspring are fertile and rejoin the same gene pool as the parent. I was reading the modifed version to read something closer to "survive and produce fertile offspring", where 'produce' doesn't have that replacement implication.

The issue I was thinking that the edit was addressing was eg. in selection against hybridizing, where the ofspring may be produced, but are infertile (or where they are fertile, but are not going to be part of the same gene pool as the ancestors) and therefore Nat Sel could not explain the choice to mate in such a way as to form hybrids, since that reproductive success hasn't historically led to the parent having that mating propensity. It's one of those issues I sometimes think students miss, then equate producing offspring with reproductive success.

-Cheers, Pete.Hurd 20:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis

"I protected the page to stop you pushing your rather ridiculous POV. I could have just protected against vandalism, but I was being kind. To reiterate then, we have the NPOV policy. NPOV is not a "compromise" between an utterly bizarre view and something neutral. You cannot state opinions as facts, however much religious fervour you have for them. Dunc|☺ 12:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Truth_seeker" "

Can you please go to the talk page and discuss what your issues are?Truth_Seeker 03:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis

Are you going to unlock?Truth_Seeker 18:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Harry potter?

I guess you saw the VfU debate on Harry Potter trolling. That has about 4 days yet to go and is far from clear yet. I wonder why you restored given that? -Splash 00:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I can't speak for Dunc, but you are aware that a sysop can unilaterally undelete an out-of-process speedy, right? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's even a policy document somewhere that says so. But I don't think it helpful to do so in the middle of a perfectly reasonable VfU debate and in the absence of an emergency. Plus, this wasn't a speedy, it was a AfD re-closure. -Splash 02:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

*Making new entry*

Well now, you got to be all technical about the internet huh? Well, maybe i'm just too lazy to search for "Active reader" or "Active reading"...I mean for gosh sakes I already checked on Dictionary.com , and it wasn't there...I guess I just kinda gave up after that...

--Zaboo 21:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC) LeonLover16

WP:CIVIL

Per WP:CIVIL I respectfully request that you refrain from describing other editors' good-faith contributions as "crap" [5]. 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)

to: Dunc

Unless your overall behavior changes, I want no more mails from you at my userpage. You forfeited this right with your rude "fundie" etc etc mail. Please do not waste my time or yours in future correspondence unless I see the requisite changes. I have no interest in reading your mail in the meantime.

ken 23:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I don't believe you are being sincere. I am not wound up because you were rude to me. I have a thick skin and such rudeness does not bother me. However, I see no need for us to interact unless you alter your behavior and your userpage tells me you haven't. Please take a hint. No more mail.

ken 18:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Trees School District v. Pico

Proper article started, per your wise counsel. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

to: Dunc

I have told you to stop writing to me. I think you are rude and not ready to change yet as can be seen by others comments to your usepage. Until you do (and comments to your userpage show that you are not), I am not interested in receiving your mail nor am I interested in reading what you write. Please stop writing to me.

Here is an excerpt from a mail you wrote to me:

"Look mate, I can respect you for not losing your rag. Now, I'm fairly clueless about this whole matter, but having dealt with a lot of creationist nonsense, I think the nonsense threshold of fundies is low."

Here are what some people said to you:

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, does not give you the right to harass others. Bahn Mi 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duncharris

Please stop pestering me as I do not think you are sincere as can be seen by your comments to others.

Thank you,

ken 16:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

to: dunc

I have asked a admin who offered to help not to step in yet. I do try to give people warnings and a chance to change. However, I have stated this will not continue and I will ask for assistance if your campaign continues. Now if you truly wish to be my friend (which I stated I was skeptical about given the remarks I see at your userpage and your past behavior) you will pull down your latest RFC campaign which is full of inaccuracies and I consider a "gossip column". I said I wanted to see actions on your behalf. You have a chance to do this. So far I have been entirely justified in my skepticism regarding you.

And again, please do not write me. I do want to see actions. I think you will regret writing me if you do as I have no reticience to ask the appropriate parties to step in.

ken 17:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I have asked that you show your sincerity though actions. Given this, I have asked a admin to periodically check your userpage and to take appropriate action if you are acting inappropriately towards others. I see no reason to allow you to act inappropriately towards others.

ken 18:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Falkland Islands

Hi, with respect to the reversion which you did of my changes I can say two things:

1)The image Image:Malvinas.jpp was taked in Argentina and remembers to the fallen ones in the war by these islands.

2)For England the capital is Port Stanley, for our Country (Argentina), the capital is Puerto Argentino, so I do not see because they cannot appear both names. I am going to return to revert to my version, if you have in agreement, we can pass the discussion to the coffee. A greeting. Loco085 19:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo

I just suggested that he try another route (like mediation), since he can't really ban people from his talk page. I'll have a look at the RfC. Guettarda 19:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in Evolution

Modifying a page to be more accurate is not vandalism. I am simply removing factual inaccuracies from an article. The alternative is to mark the article POV. Unless someone can provide evidence that no biologists or other scientists are creationist, the use of the absolute generalization is inappropriate and should be removed.

POV on Evolution

You recently commented on my talk page that there is no controversy with regard to evolution. The truth is that there is a large section of society who doubts the theory of evolution or advocates an alternate theory, and some of these individuals are respected members of the scientific community. Albert Einstein himself, a great scientific mind, commented (paraphrase) that he became increasingly convinced as to the existence of a creator as he learned more and more about nature.

Keeping this in mind, any statement which flatly states that evolution has completely replaced alternate theories within the scientific community is clearly and wildly inaccurate.

Also, thanks for your efforts to orient me to Wiki. Just a heads up - I've been following the Wiki project for a long time and view it frequently, I simply rarely have time to make properly researched edits.

Jlefler 20:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Presumptuous

Your recent comments on my talk page presume I am advocating the "modern American protestant fundamentalist creationist movement." The simple fact is that my edits have nothing to do with this movement, and have everything to do with the accuracy of the article itself. The generalization that no scientific support exists for theories other than evolution is simply false.

Choose to believe whatever you like - but please refrain from allowing your personal beliefs to dictate your edits on the Wiki.

Block me from editing?

1.) You pointed to the 3RR rule. The edit I made was the second edit I've ever made on a wikipedia page...the first on the evolution page.

2.) The 3RR page you pointed me to specifically states: "This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, or reversions for the purpose of maintenance (such as on the Introduction or the Sandbox)." You will undoubtedly disagree, but my revert to the post by JLefler was indeed due to your vandalism.

3.) How are you going to block me from editing? This isn't meant as a flame. I'm just curious to know if this is possible by a regular user or if you are an admin or something.

139.146.149.3 20:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

to: dunc

Mark encouraged me to make attempts at reconciliation. I composed a letter but before I sent it out I decided to put together a letter which attempts to better solve the problem that currently exist.

I realize you sent a "let's be friend's letter" that I said I was skeptical about and said I wanted to see actions.

I don't think I needed to take such a all or nothing approach to your letter although I had some skepticism due to your past letters ("fundie", "nonsense", etc. etc.) and other matters. I also didn't think the letter covered the whole issue. But I should have been more open to the idea that your "fundie" and "nonsense" saying days were over at the time you wrote the letter.

The second issue is that you said I needed to be more cooperative with people and reach consensus if memory serves. I saw this the minority view would shrivel down to nothing and likely turn into a strawman in the article. However, I do believe in being at peace with people. Although I didn't appreciate your letters in the past and other things you did I don't think that two wrongs make a right and I don't think I should have done the "Duncharris bio" as this was not according to Wikipedia rules and was not an attempt at reconciliation. My apologies.

Next, I wanted to see if I could work with you and see if you were some totally fanatical hardcore militant atheist. I went to two hot button articles the atheism/creationism areas and saw somewhat of a mixed bag but you weren't totally obsessed with the issue. You did delete some creationist links but you didn't appear to have some overridding malice and said you might have deleted some relevant ones in the talk page.

Next, I went to your userpage to see how fair you were on the creation-evolution issue with people.

Here is what you wrote:

"Again, although there is considerable relgious belief in creationism within the US public, acceptance is virtually zero within the scientific community. Dunc|☺ 20:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)"

I did not see a whole lot of venom there. I will say though that you are mistaken and that 5% of US scientist are creationist. [6] But I think it is the lack of "attitude" you had that was important which is something I saw in your early messages to me which I believe frankly had "attitude".

Next, I do believe in academic freedom and the Wiki policy on minority view articles.

Here is what I am referring to:

None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.[7]

I am not going to assume I know your view about the above. A wise person in many ways stressed to me in the past not to assume. He said, "ASK!"

I think if you respect that minority views which are not hateful can "receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia." then I have no problem with you. I frankly do not want to see a tremendously larger article than is at Wikipedia or here: BSF -CreationWiki.

I hope this clears the air and shows I want things to be better. I hope you want things to be better too.

Sincerely,

ken 22:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Copyright Problems

Just to inform you of this request: [8] --Titoxd 23:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Abusive language

Please refrain from using abusive language about articles you wish to see deleted (but know won't be). CalJW 00:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

A simple statement of facts is not abusive. Personally, I think all schoolcruft is shit that should be flushed down the gutter, asap. Corner shops next, is it? Dunc|☺ 00:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

56, 58 and 59 photos

Yes I've got photos of classes 56, 58 and 59. Will upload them to the commons and paste links below. Our Phellap 19:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Image:59001 'Yeoman Endeavour' at Doncaster Works.JPG
• Image:58001 at Doncaster Works.JPG
• Image:56115 'Barry Needham' at Cheltenham Spa.JPG
• Image:56006 at Doncaster Works.JPG
• Image:56003 at Cheltenham Racecourse.JPG

Any other classes you want? Our Phellap 19:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Have got most of the others, except for class 35 - although i could scan one in from a print. will do it tomorrow/day after when i have more time to spare. Our Phellap 20:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

BR Class 77

Thanks for writing the article on British Rail Class 77. I noticed you also incorporated the NS 1500 Class as well. I would probably be tempted to write separate articles, as this will allow more detail on each of their respecitive careers to be added without confusion, and also allow the correct categorisation. What do you think? As a note, 1501/E27003 (in Holland) and 1502/E27000 (in UK) have also been preserved. I will upload a photo of E27000 later tonight. Our Phellap 19:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A Polite Request To Leave Me Alone

I don't have 2 user names, and those Stroud photos had nothing to do with me. Please stop harassing me and posting rubbish on my talk page. You didn't like my article on Tredington School, fine, it'll go to a vote - democracy in action. Now leave me alone! Thank you. kingboyk

??? Sorry about the usernames then. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Dunc|☺ 19:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

RSoD

Why did you redirect Red screen of death to Blue screen of death? --tyomitch 20:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Insults

Please refrain from insulting me on my talk page. That school has some notable traits and deserves to be kept.Gateman1997 01:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation request

I'm leaving you this message because you posted a reply on the Copyright Violation page. Please let me know if there is a different procedure to follow.

I posted a request for removal of a copyrighted image nearly 5 days ago, and it has not been responded to nor any action taken. I see that responses to other requests are generally posted within a day or so.

Would you please take a look at my request to remove the image "Wintu Women Circa 1900" [9] and let me know if there is some other method I should be following to achieve the removal of this copyrighted image.

The text of the request is below:

Copyright infringement I have been contacted and informed that an image as to which I represent the copyright holders is posted in Wikipedia Commons without permission. Please remove the following image immediately: [Wintu_Women_circa_1900.jpg].

The source of the image is listed as the website of the College of the Siskiyous, where the image appears with permission; the image on that website clearly contains the copyright statement: © 2001 Masson-Gomez Family.

I have read the statement of the person who originally posted the image, and it appears that he was under the mistaken impression that the copyright had expired - that impression is incorrect. While the image was created some time ago, it remained privately held by the family, and was not published or registered for copyright until recently. Under the Copyright Act, this image is clearly currently copyright protected.

Under 17 U.S.C. sec. 303, as a work created before 1978 but not theretofore in the public domain, which was then first published in 2001, the copyright remains active until December 31, 2047. There is a very useful chart published on the Cornell University website that sets out these complex rules in a simple way Copyright Protection Chart.

If you have any questions please contact the administrator of the College of the Siskiyous website directly, and he will confirm the copyright status of the image.

Again, please remove this protected image immediately.

CopyrightProtection 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

CopyrightProtection 20:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted material removal

Thank you - your courtesy and assistance are very much appreciated.

CopyrightProtection 20:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

adminship

Thanks for your message. I am quite keen to say yes, but before I do, what additional responsibility does adminship entail? Our Phellap 12:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"crap" is a subjective term

You might want to consider moderating the tone of your anti-schools campaign - particularly given your history of contributing volumes of "non-notable" railcruft that many editors might well consider to be an over-representation of irrelevant minutiae about a subject of limited interest. People in glass houses should not, after all, throw stones - and this project is supposed to be based on a respecting a diversity of opinions - not trashing opinions and interests that differ from your own. --Centauri 15:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You missed my point completely; I'm not interested in deleting railcruft or any other cruft. They all belong in Wikipedia, because they are a part of the sum total of human knowledge, which is exactly what Wikipedia exists to document. That is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do - document all human knowledge - not just the bits that some people happen to think are "interesting" or "notable". Your approach is inconsistent, because it asserts that one sort of "cruft" is objectively "better" than another sort; this is irrational and arbitrarily subjective. Verifiable, factual information is verifiable, factual information - nothing more. It cannot by definition be "good" information or "bad" information - and that applies as much to schools as it does to locomotives, ships, aircraft, or shopping centres. --Centauri 07:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Semi-automated template substitution

• This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 09:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)