User talk:Silly rabbit/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wait, you are the author

Hi. It looks like you are the one who changed the warning from "rarely" to "never," care to explain? Thanks. El_C 05:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The template is broken for reference lists for a number of reasons. First of all, accessibility features cannot be guaranteed. Secondly, (and most obviously) it totally breaks printing. Thirdly, it makes navigation of the references difficult for people using khtml (Safari and Konqueror), as well as some text-based and embedded browsers. Finally, I see that the template is definitely being abused: many of the reference lists were not that long. This is the sort of thing that a bunch of editors independently might think: "It looks nice, so why not use it?" It became clear to me (just from my watchlist alone) that this was going to get out of control unless immediate action was taken. Anyway, the template author had asked for it to be disabled in the main space as it is only now being used against the TfD decision on the scrollref template. The template can still be used on other namespaces (and it is much less likely to be abused there). Silly rabbit 05:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So, the possibility of it being fixed, is that out for the foreseeable future? El_C 05:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what it would mean for the template to be fixed. The scrollbox functionality provided by the Wikimedia software has a bug (in my opinion) — it's a common plight of whizbang features. For now, I want to come down hard against the recent explosion of use, since it looks as though it has reached a critical mass. Fixing it might mean finding a way to discourage editors from using the template to begin with: a special "|deprecated" flag or something like that. Silly rabbit 05:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean for printing functionality, because it could prove rather useful for lengthy references lists. (i.e. one can only split the {{reflist}} so many times...) 06:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cripes

After the above ill be brief - its the second time n 24 hrs (ie earlier was a diff article) i have come across what appears to be the same level of vndlsm at charles darwin from what looks like floating ip nos - like not close numbers but the same style of vndlsm - bit disturbing - cheers SatuSuro 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Don Quixote

The barnstar of Don Quixote

I hereby award myself this barnstar of Don Quixote for attempting to make minor changes to the reference formatting at intelligent design despite general and resounding objections. Silly rabbit 13:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I got it semiprotected to deal with the anonymous IPs, but there seems to have been a rush of registered vandals! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

ID

The Don Quixote award eh? Pretty good.
So, what was wrong with "seeking seek"?  ;) Thanks for catching that, I'm pleading brain cramp on that one. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 10:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

wrong picture?

The rabbit on your user page is a bit skinny. I thought Silly Rabbit was the Trix cereal rabbit, not a brown rabbit. Nice picture, though! (No need to respond to this message) VK35 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion on talk:Creation science

Please do not re-insert vast amounts of archived material into the article. If you again re-insert a large block of archived material into talk:Creation science, as you did here[1] I will consider it vandalism, and I will place a temporary block on your account. But please feel free to enter into a productive discussion on the talk page. Banno 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not block you if you re-insert a select few of the threads - indeed, doing so is an excellent idea, since it might swing the discussion back to the topic. Going back to mid-June would re-introduce so much material that the page would need to be archived again - a pointless exercise. Better, you might consider re-starting any unfinished topics, and linking to the difs of the discussion in the history (copy-and-paste the URL between square parentheses) so that there is less bulk of material. Banno 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I happen to disagree with you. Silly Rabbit is correct to wish to restore large chunks of the discussion, as the items were not yet closed. Also, memory is cheap, you simply cannot tell me that the discussion page was too big. Yes, people using dial-up may find it slow to load, but I don't see that as our problem. Time to upgrade to the 21st century. •Jim62sch• 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Creation science

Just a note to let you know that I have asked for comment on this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Banno 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting of crank linkspammer on Theistic evolution‎

Thanks for keeping an eye on the crank ThinkUnity.com linkspammer on Theistic evolution‎. I support you 100% in your intent to have this blacklisted if you see it reappear. -- Jmc 23:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism claims on Creation Science page

In regards to your claims of vandalism on the Creation Science page, Wikipedia policy specifically states that neither Bold Edits nor Stubbornness can be considered as vandalism. The changes made do not fall under any category of what constitutes vandalism. F00188846 1:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

SR, did you request page protection? If so, very good move. :) •Jim62sch• 21:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I (regrettably) can't take credit for it. I suspect that it was Filll's post at ANI/3RR that got the attention of some benevolent admin. Cheers, Silly rabbit 23:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, it was still a good idea. •Jim62sch• 00:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Scott Crow

Hi, I'm curious why you re-added the Category:American anarchists to the Scott Crow article after I removed it yesterday? Was this just a mistake, or do you know something I don't? Anyway, I have removed it again. Silly rabbit 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely did not mean to do that. Must've somehow edited DGG's version by mistake--I really did just want to take out the empty section header. Thanks for taking it back out, and sorry for the confusion! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi from Simon

Hey,

Okay, so i logged in and seen i had a new message from you. Thanks. I love wikipedia and have been reading it for about a year and decided i should get an account and start to make some edits and join in on the talk pages etc. I was looking for a way to reply to your comments you left me, i think this is the correct way to do it.

Thanks for the encouragement :)

Huh?

How the heck did this happen? [2] •Jim62sch• 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Kenosis got some wires crossed, and signed for me instead of you. We were posting in different sections at around the same time. Silly rabbit 17:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It confused the hell out of me. •Jim62sch• 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FDR photo

Regarding your reversion of my edit to the Franklin Roosevelt page. Regardless of how the photo is tagged, every photo of FDR signing the declaration of war against Japan I've seen, from the New York Times archives to any other reputable source, has clearly shown him wearing a black suit--not the grey suit in the photo in question. He wore a grey suit on December 11, when he signed the war daclarations against Germany and Italy.THD3 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See this link. It could be an error at the library of congress, I suppose, but it's a fairly heavy burden of proof. Silly rabbit 22:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My mistake. It looks like the loc is in error. Cheers, Silly rabbit 22:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes and scroll boxes

See Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#scroll_box_for_references and Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Should_we_ever_box_in_references. Silly rabbit 12:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Sylvilagus transitionalis (juvenile).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sylvilagus transitionalis (juvenile).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Silly rabbit 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

???--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 00:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:ॐ

Thank you for making your report to WP:UAA for User:ॐ. The name has not been blocked, because the username policy allows non-latin usernames. I have left a message on the user's talk page requesting that a transliteration be placed on the user page. Leebo ^T/C 13:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted references

Once again I wonder...Why is he posting on his own talkpage?--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't I talk to myself in peace, please? Oh... people are watching. How embarrassing. Silly rabbit 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

People are always watching you. You just don't know it yet. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 16:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the claimed vandalism on silvia saint

This user has made similar claims in the past, just a 5 second look at their profile/history brings up interesting results such as: Talk:Rikki Anderson. The user there eventually gave up with "On second thought Valrith, do what you want. Life's too short to get into a spat over an obscure Wikipedia article over a porn star". It appears valrith has been engaging in persistent disruptive behavour. I suppose now that I've realised the extent of this behavour, I've got to choices: give up like this other fellow did, or bring it up with high authorities. Oh well. Anyway, you were the first other party to mention this on my userpage so I thought I'd let you know this is not an isolated case. Mathmo ^Talk 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Degeneres

Concerning your decision to include lesbian in the Ellen Degeneres article...do you think it would be appropriate to include it as lesbian icon instead? Yavoh 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Degeneres is hardly what I would call a lesbian icon. 69.152.115.249 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I more or less agree. She is not an icon in the way that Barbra Streisand is an icon of the gay community. Rather she is a notable open lesbian, and I think that is a significant fact for the LGBT community. It definitely deserves mention in the lead. I agree also with the sentiment that led the editor (whom I reverted) to delete the characterization from the lead. It does look a bit awkward where it is. However, the lead clearly needs expansion per WP:LEAD. Like it or not, lesbian should remain. Silly rabbit

How long

How long is your wikibreak going to be? 69.149.64.64 03:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

calling creationism fallacious is not POV it is a statement of fact, there is indisputable and undeniable evidence that it is wrong, and this should be taken into account, it is not just a matter of what you choose to believe, whilst this is religion it is wrong. It is no more POV than the opening line of this page which states that Harry Potter is fictitious, that is not POV, and neither is stating that creationism is equally fictitious. Philc 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the scientific method make such unequivocal statements? The belief is not fallacious, in the sense that it does not contain any manifestly self-contradictory elements. It may be that the belief flies in the face of evidence, of the scientific consensus, etc. But to call it fallacious without further qualification is clearly POV-pushing. Silly rabbit 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is fallacious in the sense that it has elements contradictory to common sense, that any person forced to consider the evidence on either side in a logical fashion would come to the same conclusion, by extension it is illogical to come to the conclusion that creationism is factually accurate, and through use of synonym but no further argument, therefore fallacious. I did provide further proof as well, citing my statement with a link to the National Academy of Science page on evidence for evolution, it does not follow directly from my claim, but does not require much intellect to see how that qualifies the claim further. Philc 17:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there needs to be additional explanation in order to include "fallacious." A fallacious belief by itself does not seem to convey any meaning, apart from a belief which is not self-consistent. A "flawed interpretation of all available evidence" seems to be nearer what you are trying to say, and that isn't something to be equated with "fallacious". You may as well just come out and say that it's a "false belief" for all that. Silly rabbit 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So your issue was not so much with the meaning of the point I was trying to add, but its discourse? Would you allow for me to add false belief then? Philc 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, some folks (those who believe it) may consider that a non-NPOV. Silly rabbit 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that something is 'contradictory to common sense' is original research in my mind. The only way to seriously work away at this is to bring it up on the creationism talk page - discussing it with individual editors won't get the main page changed. Apologies, Rabbit, for co-opting your talk page. WLU 20:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)