User talk:Nukeh/Archive1

Cleared on 2/09/08 - mainly learning curve errors from image uploads and referencing Cleared again 3/07/08

Wave power#Potential

I've moved your addition to this section to the talk page; please do not replace it until there is a consensus on it. I'm not clear if it is a hoax, or something worse, and I'm not clear about your role in it, either. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I also suggest you don't keep clearing your talk page; it looks dishonest. You'd be better archiving it if you want to avoid clutter. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am relatively new on WP, and I thought as issues were resolved, I'd clear up the earlier messes. I will archive; I did not know that was a feature. Nukeh (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Archiving a talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You've stated your commercial interest in this, which is a promising start. So: you mighe want to read Conflict of interest for the community's view on conflicted edits; also Wikipedia:External links (and not as an exercise in Wikilawyering, but as a warning not to promote your sites or sites that bring you AdSense juice). There won't be many dispassionate experts on wave power, due to the nature of the field, so hopefully you can work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines and help to build these articles. The five pillars are the important cornerstones of policy and guidelines, and the most important are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, to use their common abbreviations. Please leave a message on my talk page if you get lost in the Byzantine complexity of this place. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

check siganture after changing preferences and entering email address

100TWdoug (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Be Bold

100TWdoug (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

response re: Kansas

Hello - it isn't clear to me what you are referring to. If it is for the Kansas article, my only recent edit (this one) reverted an anon's inappropriate change to a picture caption. If it is something else, please let me know. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

History

See that tab that says "history", next to "edit this page"? There is no way for mere mortals to ever delete anything from Wikipedia. Every version gets saved forever and can be readily recovered from the article history. The only two exceptions are when an article gets AfD'd (deleted) all of the history goes "poof" and vanishes and the other is admins have the capability of removing items from history which they use for example if personal information needs to be removed or defamation needs to be removed. Note that even articles that have been deleted can be recovered by admins upon request. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I got in trouble with people for deleting, but no one told me how to undelete! 100TWdoug (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC). But, The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits. Seems like you have adopted me.100TWdoug (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits means that there had been changes within the block of text that you wanted to undo. That means that your "undo" didn't take, but you can still edit anything specific, anywhere in an article. "Undo" usually works best when the edit in question is vandalism, or, at least it is the most recent edit. Hope this helps - Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I need to have an Admin guru do a merge of those recent text changes on my user page with the last clear event, but it probably ain't worth it. Also, be my guest if you want to edit Sebelius' veto on coal in Kansas. Had a decision like that been made in China, the world would be astounded. Instead, she did it in what we call the bread basket of the world, if that term is still in use. I understand, from afar, that my old hometown Kansas newspaper went so far as to actually publish her signature as an image. This could turn out to be another wedge issue among the uniformed, when it is really a technology issue for clean coal that requires science and engineering work, not political debate.100TWdoug (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kansas coal headline

I'm sorry, but this doesn't meet the criteria for ITN. It just isn't important enough. I've seen no coverage in my city. I'm sorry, but I have to say no. Spencer^T♦C 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Lost user page

It is still here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Nukeh&oldid=197050395.
All pages have a history, which you can access through the history tabs that you find at the top of each page.  --Lambiam 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Wave power

Look, what's going on? Why have you altered the discussions some of the sections on this page, then deleted them wholesale?

I told you already if you want to tidy up you should use the archive process; if you want to archive an article talk page, you need to propose it first.

Moonraker12 (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to correct, beyond what is discussed above on this (my) talk page. I can't fix this (my) talk page without a merge function back into its history. Also, if you are concerned about a particular edit on either the wave power article or its talk page, please point me to the "wholesale" deletion. 100TWdoug (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC) I should add that I have considered doing this merge myself in an external editor such as MS Web Expressions, but the relative hyperlinks will be to that local copy of the html on my computer. If I go through and change those by hand, I might make a mess of things, and I don't think I can or should publish HTML here with or without preview. Any suggestions other than don't clear before archiving - my mistake?100TWdoug (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about here [1] where you’ve deleted discussion
And here [2] where you’ve deleted whole sections
And here [3] where you’ve changed the content
and here [4]where you've re-written the comment.

And are you using the name 100TWdoug, now?
If so, you should read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to stay within guidelines.
Moonraker12 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Defamation by smoke? Why? 50MWdoug (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You said you didn’t understand “the critical comments” I left on your talk page. Perhaps you should read them again. My comments were not about your edits on the Wave Power article; I haven’t offered any opinion on those. They are about your edits on the talk page there, which (I thought) the heading of this section made clear. And my criticism was that after suggesting to you that deleting content on talk pages was a bad idea, you went and did it again on Talk:Wave Power. And when you effectively denied doing it I provided you with the links. This is, believe it or not, meant to be friendly advice; You seem to be opening a credibility gap around you with your actions, and I’m trying to suggest ways to put that right.

My comment about sockpuppets were in the same vein. You can have more than one username if you wish as the sockpuppet page makes clear; what suggests sockpuppetry is when one editor has a number of usernames contributing to a discussion, which distorts the outcome. And that is how the discussion on wave power looks at first sight. I understand your explanation, and you can carry on if you wish; I’m just telling you how it looks. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

More friendly advice, I hope:
You seem to be involved in a lot of contentious issues; to be taken seriously, you need to be making constructive edits. I took the liberty of checking your CV; You seem pretty knowledgeable in a number of fairly specialized fields Why not contribute in those areas? For example, you published an article (choosing at random!) on:-
"Characterization of a symmetrized mutant RC with 42 residues from the QA site replacing residues in the Q(B) site"
I have little idea what that is ( I can tell the words are English, but….) You could profitably check each one of these terms; if there is an article there, why not review it? Is it clear? Are there any gaps? Are the links to other pages OK, and do all the terms or items that could be linked have them? Does it explain the subject to the casual reader or the lay person, yet have sufficient detail for the more knowledgeable as well? If there isn’t an article, why not write it?
Or if that’s too much like your day job what about the articles on Frontenac? Or Kansas? I’ve just looked there and already I can see some stuff that needs doing. Why not give that a try? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there are easy places to edit. I believe Crowsnest and I have made very good improvements to Wave Power, and that is topical for some current problems facing the world, such as the energy crisis. I'd like to think a bright young child will read that Article and be stimulated to go into math, physics, and engineering for the future good of this world in terms of Alternative Energy. The photosynthesis work you site was interesting at the time. We had the opportunity to spend DOE money on basic science. Those days are over. I've done some calculations on "world GDP" and it appears to be LESS than current world energy costs. Pollution from coal burning is also problematic. I believe, as a responsible scientist and inventor, that my efforts are best based placed in encyclopedic-quality entries into critical articles (now or future) which will help train our next generation of thinkers.

Editing YEC really drained my energy. That article has a lot to do with how our children will see the objectivity of science and its interaction with public thought. If you look at my attempted edits there, the other editors seem to want to deny that the physics of time is basic to both Creation and Evolution. If these same editors were teachers of children, it appears they would expunge the physics of time from education in order to promote Darwin. (My later work at MIT and Kairos was in directed (test tube) evolution of enzymes.) I believe it is very important to help keep people's minds open - and to provide excellent references in WP - on the topics in science that are basic to Darwin and the Big Bang. In my old age (coming soon), I will take your advice and edit the easier articles, proof read, fix categories on images, and all the household functions that are necessary to keep WP the best source of information in the world. Thanks for your concern. 50MWdoug (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Arrow of time redux

Regarding your recent addition to Young Earth creationism, I suggest trying to find a better place for this sort of material. I recall reading something very similar in connection with teleological arguments for the existence of God. This is, of course, directly connected with the ideas of creationism, but I think that this kind of philosophical polemic belongs more properly in the teleological argument article. I can probably dig up a reference, given some time. silly rabbit (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As ever, a reliable secondary source is needed to verify the synthesis or analysis you're presenting, to avoid original research. .. dave souza, talk 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: "this sort of material" is called physics and that section of the YEC article is called science. These are statements of facts leading into other interesting areas of WP that are well written and solid. I see no WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:RS. This will be my first experience with whatever is in place for UnDos.50MWdoug (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was being unclear. Indeed, it is physics. However, it normally does not enter into a polemic on the existence (or non-existence) of God. What I meant was that the I have seen the argument that the big bang was the beginning of time advanced as an argument against one of the modern versions of the teleological argument. Unfortunately, I am unable to produce a reliable source for this. As, I see, are you. silly rabbit (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My point above is that this paragraph might be better off in a different article. You are probably going to be hard-pressed to find any Creationists or critics of Creationism using this sort of argument. Of course, you are welcome to try, but in the end, reliable sources must be cited so that they can be verified. Otherwise, it is original research. silly rabbit (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with including this material is the lack of any WP:RS establishing that this material has any direct relevance to YEC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Both Creation and Evolution recite a time course. Time is a physics topic, and that subject is well done in WP. In fact, the YEC Article should also be linked to wedge issue.50MWdoug (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles in wikipedia would "recite a time course" of some sort. That does not mean that the arrow of time is directly relevant to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Young Earth creationism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand the problem you are having with my edit: "Fundamental to both YEC and cosmological / biological evolution is the concept of Time. Time itself, and its perceived or actual forward progress (Arrow_of_time) is a discussion topic that includes the Second Law of Thermodynamics and questions as to whether time existed before the Big Bang." Some readers might jump to a conclusion that science has no absolute definition of time or proof of time's apparent forward motion. If time does not move forward, then the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution and the six days of biblical creation don't make much sense. Pursuing this one step further, the reader is left with two simultaneous conclusions: 1) Science has no basis for stating that time moves forward, and 2) The time course of Creation in Genesis has no basis in science for time moving forward.

Hrafn and Silly Rabbit: Let's go play in a sandbox somewhere and try to work out an entry to YEC and references that are acceptable to all three of us, as it seems the three of us are involved in an edit war. 50MWdoug (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate forum for such discussions is Talk:Young Earth creationism. However, the very first question you will be asked is can you produce a WP:RS linking this material to Young Earth Creationism? Failure to produce such a source will mean that this discussion can go no further. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. 50MWdoug (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Transplanted from the YEC Article:

"Fundamental to both YEC and cosmological / biological evolution is the concept of Time. Time itself, and its perceived or actual forward progress (Arrow_of_time) is a discussion topic that includes the Second Law of Thermodynamics and questions as to whether time existed before the Big Bang." 50MWdoug (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It lacks any reference linking it to Young Earth Creationism. We need to see a specific reliable source in which a critic of YEC or a proponent of YEC mentions the Arrow of Time, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Big Bang. I have already suggested that I have seen these notions invoked by attempts to debunk certain variants of the teleological argument for the existence of God (specifically the one that suggests that God initiated the Big Bang, or somesuch). This, however, has almost nothing to do with YEC. (And I have been equally unable to track down sources, but I know I have them somewhere.) silly rabbit (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We definitely need not just sources, but reliable sources. The statement by itself makes no sense scientifically; it is a nonsense sentence with no meaning. Of course, assorted creationists and even YEC might say something like this, since they claim a lot of things which have no meaning and are impossible to decipher. But we need to be able to find a source for this statement, otherwise we cannot use it.--Filll (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You were told on User talk:Nukeh‎ why your edits were repeatedly reverted (so stop pretending to be baffled). Now produce a WP:RS linking "the concept of Time" directly to Young Earth Creationism, or this discussion stops right here. HrafnTalkStalk 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not pretending, I am actually baffled: When I make edits on other Articles, these sorts of conversations don't develop. May I suggest that you (Silly rabbit and Hrafn) look for the reference so that you are satisfied with what you find? That would demonstrate that you are neutral, as I am. I'll come back in a month or two, so this conversation dies down and people have time to think clearly. There might be something in [6] and Google does not search there, nor are any other search engines allowed. 50MWdoug (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Even if it wasn't for that, why on Earth should I spend time looking for sources that I don't believe exist? As far as I can see, there is no direct connection between YEC and the arrow of time. It doesn't matter whether you come back in a minute or a month, the answer will be the same: no WP:RS, no inclusion of material. HrafnTalkStalk 18:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that our problem in editing is more fundamental than I first thought: 2 Timothy 3 (Godlessness in the Last Days) 1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

Given the last sentence, I will refrain, as best I can, from editing your Article. 50MWdoug (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Young_Earth_creationism" 50MWdoug (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Threat You Left on Hrafn's Talkpage

FYI: It's not really cool to threaten anyone with a lawsuit here, directly or no. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That was not a threat. I am merely saying that the laws of the land supercede the rules of a wiki, especially when the wiki rules are bent to defame individuals or institutions that raise money. If Hranfn, silly rabbit, and Filll provoke a suit, I would side with these wikipedians. It is not an exercise that we need to go through, but they are playing with fire in total ignorance of defamation and the ability of icr.org to raise money. 50MWdoug (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I could probably write several pages on reasons why a lawsuit is never going to happen Dougie, but really you're not worth the effort -- so I'm simply going to sit here and laugh at your crackpot legal theories. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Hrafn^Talk

Stalk 06:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

YEC needs to be corrected or deleted

If you look at my other edits, you will see that I have WP's best interests at heart. YEC either needs to be self-corrected by us or deleted before there are problems. It is best to expose the problems ourselves and to fix it. Otherwise, it appears to involve malice with no mechanism for self-correction. That is how other publications have gotten in trouble. As a person that has been in litigation for a decade, believe me, we don't want to go there. It would be a shame to see WP going down over people who are basically trying to say: "Creationists are stupid" and misusing published information from icr.org and its principals, who rasie millions of dollars per year as a 501(c)3. I don't like what icr.org does either, but this is an encyclopedia. If xyz wants to say "Creationists are stupid" and our editors are not playing dual roles, that's fine to enter as an encyclopedia. However, our editors have no conflict-avoidance statement in place. Please note, I am fully disclosed as being doug@youvan.com, my actual name. WP Anonymity is transparent in a court of law of competent jurisdiction. Please also note that I am a biophysicist, yet a Calvinist, and not a lawyer.50MWdoug (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Aunt_Entropy"

Per the WP:NLT policy, I have blocked you until this issue is off the table. Since you have provided no concrete points of criticism where you think the YEC article contains defamatory material, I can only conclude that your bringing up the legal topic serves only to stifle debate and for you to get the upper hand in a content dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"I can only conclude that your bringing up the legal topic serves only to stifle debate and for you to get the upper hand in a content dispute" That's one hell of an assumption. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nukeh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I assume you are checking the validity of my concern about the YEC article. Please unblock, and I will not edit that Article or respond to comments on user pages until this issue is fully reviewed.

Decline reason:

You seemed to have missed the point. The point is threatening that people could get sued if they don't edit the way you want creates a chilling effect that would destroy the entire purpose of this project. Continuing to say that you want the issue resolved in your manner is not helping the situation. If you have a legitimate view, state it on the talk page without the threats. You have to be able to convince people without things like that. — Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is absurd. Clearly the blocking admin and the admin who declined the unblock do not understand WP:NLT. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing the situation now and will have an answer for you soon. MBisanz ^talk 08:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am still in a learning curve.50MWdoug (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed from the history of this page that my second request for unblocking "{{unblock|I will agree to being blind to editorial problems with defamation of nonprofit religious institutions and their principals}}" was expunged by MBisanz. That is very different from: "As you have agreed not to continue or carryout legal threats, I am unblocking you." MBisanz: No legal threat was ever made. My intent was to warn other editors not to defame icr.org and its principals as if WP was immune from law. Why was "the reason" in my second unblock request expunged?50MWdoug (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, people get touchy on here when you start bringing "legal language" into play. :) If you do believe there's an urgent legal concern, I'd encourage you to make use of Wikipedia:Contact us in the future, where you can get in more direct contact with the Wikimedia Foundation; otherwise, it's usually best when seeking editorial solutions to make use of editorial processes (in simpler terms: legal policies in legal channels, Wikipedia policies in Wikipedia channels -- at some point the line blurs, but it's helpful to bear in mind the distinction). As possible examples, Wikipedia has content policies including neutral point of view, verifiability, and biographies of living persons which can be of use. Obviously problematic users can be reported at the incidents noticeboard; less obvious or less urgent problems are usually handled via dispute resolution or could be reported at the village pump.

You're quite correct that Wikipedia (and Wikipedians) are not above the law, but unfortunately reminding other users of this so vocally and pointedly tends to draw negative attention to yourself, as you've experienced. Hopefully this hasn't turned you off too badly. What content in particular do you believe is a problem?

Also, you asked why your second unblock request was removed: because it was granted, and you were unblocked, so the template was removed. If you feel the text within that template was important, I'm not aware of any reason you can't put it back.

Anyhow, hope you'll take this post as a token of friendly advice. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, you can put the text itself back, nothing wrong with it. Its just the technical way the template works. If I didn't remove it, it would still appear in the Category requesting an unblock. So the only options are to expand it to a decline or remove it with the unblock message. MBisanz ^talk 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a new problem with the YEC page, and I have requested an RFC for the first time ever as a Wikipedian - please see the talk page on Young Earth creationism. The Talk section just above the RFC notice was generated by a single sentence that I tried to edit into the Article, identifying the Amish people as an example of YECs. It would not be surprise if these anonymous editors that gang up on me are operating outside of WP to generate material to reference and to coordinate attacks on other editors. They should disclose why it is that they are so interested in trashing John and Henry Morris, www.icr.org, or another editor who happens to be a Creationist, but does not fit their model of stupidity for Creationists. I am a Wikipedian with a real name, a co-inventor of directed evolution in biotechnology, and a person with a strong interest in the physics of time asymmetry. If I began citing work on enzymes involving isotope effects on Carbon-fixation by plants, we will have more trouble. The same is true for work on the genetic code - which shows it to be something other that a "frozen accident" using SVD, a discrete mathematics technique. I fully understand that most people have a big problem with Creation, but they are also going to have to be open to references from physics and biology that call evolutionary mechanisms into question. It is simply not fair to write-off Creationist as stupid. To me, the Creationist position is somewhat similar to arguments in subnuclear physics that invoke Mathematical_beauty - after we have reached our human limits to conduct experiments.50MWdoug (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}}by editing http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Young_Earth_creationism&action=edit&section=16 RFC so it is functional.50MWdoug (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But could you clarify it more?--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy?} 18:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the template - all you need to do is remove the <nowiki></nowiki> tags to make it work. However, before doing so, please elaborate more on why you feel the RfC is needed, specifically what you've tried to do and what other editors have done to "squash your entries". While doing this, please remember not to make accusations and keep a neutral tone. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Talk:Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education?

{{help me}} I am not up to speed on what constitutes WP vandalism. Is removing two entire sections on Talk:Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education vandalism?

It depends, can you link a diff? Alexfusco⁵ 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an undo will work; in diff, I think I see partially erased sentences, too.50MWdoug (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[The following moved back here from User talk:Hrafn, where it shouldn't have been in the first place Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)]

As far as I can see it most definitely wasn't vandalism... talkpages are for discussion about the article, NOT the article's topic generally so removing your statements seems quite legitimate. Teapotgeorge (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The "talkpages are for discussion about the article, NOT the article's topic generally". Could you be more verbose? What does "topic generally" mean? How can one editor determine whether the discussion is either : 1) exactly specific to the article, or 2) too general for the article? - 50MWdoug (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[End transfered material Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) ]

{{help me}} Does this diff imply disruptive editing and / or vandalism?: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACreation_and_evolution_in_public_education&diff=203814071&oldid=203784204 ? It's difficult to edit any article where this User opposes one's entries. - 50MWdoug (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• In what sense do you mean "what does it imply"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this history imply disruptive editing and / or vandalism? - 50MWdoug (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. He's just removing stuff that isn't relevant to improving the article, which is fine per WP:TALK. (Contact on my talk page if you have any further questions). Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)