This is an archive of past discussions with Wikiscient. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
To be honest, I had considered nominating that article for deletion becuase it had a lack of content. But I decided that it was legitimate, and now it's on its way. Thank you again, and take care! --Delta1989 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. I suppose I loosely interpreted the word "scan" when choosing which "licensing" tag to use...
Worse, though, is that that tag also says:
Note: If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed.
Oops.
So I'm going to nominate the file for deletion and try to find a usuable image somewhere else.
Awarded for reverting tons and tons of vandalism. Even with that conflict a couple weeks back, you're still a good vandal fighter, even though you've slowed down a small bit. ConCompS (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No later than yesterday I was told by another user to remove my comment because it was too POV and now you want to reinstate it, I love Wikipedia but I am getting a bit tired of all these do's and dont's !!! --Marleau (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Referring to these edits to the Isabel (film) article -- yes, I saw that you were removing "unsourced" material from the article, which is usually "justifiable" if there is some good reason to remove it so I did not just revert those edits as "unexplained deletion of content."
Yes, though, "wikipolicy" can be a bit confusing for all involved, especially when trying to apply it on-the-fly doing "vandal patrol"!
The edits were mine, I must have logged myself out by mistake, but since the comments are available through the link for people interested in knowing more about the film, I think I will just leave it as it is for the moment to avoid further misunderstanding. Thanks ! --Marleau (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be grateful if you'd give Wikipedia:SIG#Customizing_your_signature a good hard read, checking out especially injunctions such as "Your signature should ...inconvenience or annoy other editors", or suggestions that signatures should " not give undue prominence to a given user's contribution".
And then take a look at this RD conversation [1] in which your signature appears multiple times, to very great annoyance.
Why do you need to tart up your signature to annoy in this way? Is your ego so fragile that you need this sort of star billing wherever you leave your thoughts? Please, get a grip and tone it down by several notches. --Tagishsimon(talk)13:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some of your comments above constitute a clear violation of WP:NPA. As you appear to be quite the experienced editor, I'm sure this one warning should suffice to discourage you from such behavior from now on.
That said: I do, in fact, agree with you about the point you were making re. my signature. The specific RD conversation you refer to is, it turns out, the first time I have made so many comments so close (on the page) to each other, and seeing my signature repeated so densely in that conversation actually annoyed me, too! I had, therefore, decided to give some thought to changing my signature – and would probably be working on that right now had I not become distracted by your rather misplaced and unconstructive edits on my talk page! So, I fear, I must therefore risk further annoying you thus: Wikiscient17:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you like. If you're not yourself prepared to back up your rather odd assertion, then do so. It seems to be a fatuous waste of other people's time to me, but it's your call. --Tagishsimon(talk)17:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IUCN status is easily available here. If you search for the species' name (scientific name is generally best) the species will show up, if it has been rated. Most mammals, birds and amphibians have been rated, but in remaining groups (notably fish, invertebrates and most groups of plants) a large percentage have not. Reptiles and a few groups of plants are more or less in between, but they're getting there. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I should mention that for a few species wikipedia use the Endangered Species Act instead, but then the status system (in the taxobox) is ESA rather than IUCN (under that system there are also different categories, e.g. Endangerd is just "E" rather than the "EN" used in IUCN). 62.107.237.72 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi, Im new, you removed my statement from pythagoras
It is a mathematical proof, it is deduced by simple geometry. I f you really need a source, get Donald Duck in MatheMagicland from Disney Corporation, circa 1950-something. It is explained plainly there. It is like citing that a square has four sides. Its a truth. A fact plainly seen by anyone willing to do the requisite maths.
I appreciate your desire to keep wikipedia clean, but this is a bit overbearing to have a common fact removed. How do you cite basic geometry ? It is like saying 2+2 is 4, here is my source.
Measure the sides and you will see for yourself.
I no longer care to help this place, it is too much trouble to state a basic fact. Consider that in the future.
LOL, point taken -- I stand by my reversion of your edit, but please don't get discouraged! Your contributions are welcome, if you care to continue making them -- as long as you can abide by some standard Wikipedia policies and procedures; see eg. the Manual of Style for starters... Regards, Wikiscient(talk)00:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to demonstrate how, without altering this image in any way (eg., removing a side...), you can "superimpose" three of them to end up with a "Pentagram" as your edit claims one can...? Wikiscient(talk)01:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
I had originally requested a third person's perspective while discussing a paragraph already present on Meditation#Christianity. Then I proposed the addition of a new paragraph, which was reverted, and you wrote about (agreed with) that reversion.
A fresh perspective on the situation can help one remember the bigger picture. Thanks for your thoughtful addition. Whether we agree or not, with care we are all going to improve Wikipedia together, and can at least agree on that :) makeswell (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your comments. I was glad to throw my two-cents in on this one. It seems like there's been more disputing than constructive contributing to that article recently! I know it can be easy to get caught up in a dispute like that, but, yes, it's a good thing to step back from it for a moment when possible and consider what's best for the article as opposed to for your argument.
I made a few edits to the article myself earlier today, but I really think the best thing at this point would be to just replace that whole section with the current lead of the Christian meditation article itself. I posted that suggestion and more comment at Talk:Meditation#mentioning Theoria -- what do you think?
Have any further ideas? Enok and I still don't agree. I believe those 20 mil russians are potential and thus haven't joined, as the excerpt and factbook stated they are potential, but Enok believes they have joined. Sopher99 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im done, I couldn't even provide a footnote cause it won't allow me. I just added a note in the the near bottom of the page. i'm pretty much done. Sopher99 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was motivated by something I saw in ToAT's post preceding it, something about the term "pro-Science" or something. I just wanted to make clear that my own comments in that discussion are coming from a "pro-Science" position. Sorry if that did not seem relevant to you in the context; I'm hoping it is relevant to others involved in that discussion. Wikiscient(talk)18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense when you explain it. I was just confused. The link between MIT's seal and a pro-science position is pretty indirect, and the context is not obvious, so I doubt I'm alone. Plain language can be better than an image - it occurs to me that "1000 words" may be more than is needed sometimes. Cheers! -- Scray (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the image got de-linked by Dashbot anyway. Probably best, as it did seem out of place where I had it -- thanks for pointing that out to me! The image you put up (at right), though, was exactly what was needed at that time and perfectly summed up the point I was trying to make there, tastefully and effectively -- thanks for that, too! Cheers, Wikiscient(talk)15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I think I gave the wrong impression on my comment on that page; I didn't mean for the comment to be aimed at you, but rather at one of the other editors there who relisted the page for another 3O. Sorry if it came off that way. Trust me, another opinion is always welcome there, and I do appreciate the help. Sorry again! — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)11:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Wikiscient 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Wikiscient (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikiscient (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
