User talk:TheHerbalGerbil/Archive 3

Sun pipe

I'm not sure that was the most useful redirect. Generally redirects are used when people are looking for an article - is "sun pipe" a plausible search string? —BradV 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, considering that that's what I was looking for, after seeing this video and reading some of the discussion. :) — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. Cheers. —BradV 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You too. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen

I didnt see any obvious vandalism on the article, can you clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

MakeAHybrid and some anons put in some spam/scam material that wasn't entirely removed by subsequent edits, and looking at it, I decided the easiest way to get it out of there was to revert. I realize I sacrificed a couple of legitimate edits in the process, but I don't think it's too much to worry about. Those of us who have the page watchlisted have a pretty good rapport with one another. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I saw that someone else deleted the spam stuff before your revert, maybe a conflict. Also, what's your thoughts regarding reorginizing the article a bit? Personally I dont get why any of the Aquygen stuff is in there, but at least get it separated into more consistant sections....Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the anon edits before MakeAHybrid's. One of them made a link to a "HHO" scam website. InsanityIncarnate ought to have reverted at least to the edit before that one, not to it. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 05:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

merge brokenness

I also thought the "merge" template was broken. But I think I fixed one particular case, without changing the template itself. Do you see anywhere else that looks broken? See Template_talk:Merge#Broken. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Asshole.

Why are you on my talk page?Get the fuck out, go hump somebody elses leg.Understand,asshole?Saltforkgunman (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I DO suck dicks. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 13:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, asshole.You started this by vandalizing my user page.It doesn't matter what you think of me or what I do on wikipedia.Since you apparently can't mind your own business, lets continue this conversation at a more appropriate forum.Try www.hardcoretalk.com.Saltforkgunman (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Bubba, I'll tell you what. I didn't vandalize your userpage. I erased shit that you're not allowed to have there in the first place. And you won't find a more appropriate forum than right here for this conversation, so here it will stay. You're perfectly within your right to express your opinions on politics on your userpage, but you're not allowed to libel or slander. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 11:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your comment

here --213.209.110.45 (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-American

Most of your edits are Anti-American. That is wrong, and I would suggest that you stop doing that. 72.39.10.148 (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-American? How do you figure that? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 07:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please do not do this.  Sandstein  21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally don’t. But when someone makes a real dick move, I do. And that’s about as far as I’ll go. Have you even visited the site that that user linked? There’s a saying about characters like him: “Don’t let your mouth write checks your ass can’t cash.” — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 05:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note that in the English language, telling someone he “has his head up his ass” or to “pull his head out of his ass” is just a gruff way of telling him he’s wrong. It isn’t a personal attack per WP:NPA. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 05:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already indefinitely blocked the user for disruption and sockpuppetry. There is no need to inflame matters further, gruffly or otherwise.  Sandstein  05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, alright.

I had a hunch the guy was a sockpuppet. (Kind of a dead giveaway really, when it’s a brand-new username and the guy’s got a beef with the place.) I’m curious though… Wayne? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

support about peer review

I think you make a good point about good faith in the discussion (Steven Jones did or did not publish?). Still, on wikipedia I sometimes see claims so concise they seem less informative. Could one delineate ground for the view that these two journals are not peer reviewed?

The Open Civil Engineering Journal

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

The journals themselves might state they involve peer review. CS appears to have some information.

More importantly, the sentence in the article is characterizing what Jones has published, not characterizing the question of what peer reviewed articles have been published. There is no rule in WP that suggest articles should be vague (black or white) in describing what an author has published. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, their standards for referee selection seem to be very poor and the process doesn’t seem to be properly overseen. Academics have spoken out, telling about how they were invited by BO to review papers totally outside of their fields. And the editor of the journal that Jones et al published in resigned in disgust - she didn’t even know the paper was being published in her journal, let alone oversee the process. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 05:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:An title.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:An title.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought, and I will reply to is in a while.

That's an interesting thought, and I will reply to is in a while. Wowest (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC) . O.K. Look at my talk page for a starter. Wowest (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Unquestioned answers are more dangerous than unanswered questions."

Probably the most hilarious thing I've heard in a while. Autonova (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To be more helpful

To merely state (ae911) that "there is no pov" issue, etc, is merely a statement of one's own perception. Would you mind trying to give a more substantive reflection on the merits. Discussion and consensus is not merely a battle of vote counts. Furthermore, did you read the note carefully? Did you notice that that one quote is opposite to what is repeatedly stated by GAge and Media? There may be more egregious violations of policy that also need to be addressed at the same time. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

AE911T states plainly that their research is outside of their area of expertise. The WP article plainly repeats that claim. There is no POV other than what the reader infers. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A key part of my question remains. My founding question pointed to additional data, the link in which Gage and Media show the unsurprising view that being an architect is an asset, not a weakness or neutral. How do you reconcile the two pieces of data? Or, is your position that we can embrace one piece of data (the confusing quote) and bury the other (the media interview)? I believe it is almost lunacy to imagine that a group founded on the basis of their special expertise would believe that that expertise is a weakness, as the use of the quote implies. Neutrality is at risk and the discussion is making little progress in terms of listening. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of SSCA Flag.png

SSCA Flag.png, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:SSCA Flag.png and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of SSCA Flag.png during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

File:SSCA Flag.png

Files go to WP:FFD not WP:MFD. Also, since you uploaded it, you could have just tagged it with {{db-author}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your addition to the oxyhydrogen article

Re the message you left on my talk page--just a heads-up, I think you may be looking at the wrong edit. My edit was only changing the spelling on "ninteen" to "nineteen". Benscripps (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have 3 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In short, that's for edits that aren't made in bad-faith (eg. vandalism), but are still unproductive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Please don't revert another editor's revert. When edits are reverted, that is a sign that discussion is needed, rather than further reverting. This is particularly true on articles whose subject is contentious and which have a history of disruptive editing and POV-pushing. Needless to say, the article Talk page, and not edit summaries, are the correct venue for discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the recent edit I made to September 11 attacks? You’re right. I went ahead and opened a discussion on the talkpage and won’t touch that passage again until consensus is reached. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear; thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to say thanks for your input and for pointing the way to the FAQ section as no-else seemed to know about it. --De Unionist (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn’t even checked it out myself until about two minutes before I pointed it out. I think we should all feel a little silly. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 22:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The question about Gage at AE911 Truth

Sir Nren. The section about Gage and "experience" etc is pretty long now and longer to wade through. Did your reflections yet address the section's original critical data, namely, that the media view certain professions favorably as an asset, not a weakness (KMPH Fox 26)? I ask because, as I understood, such a media view, bolstered by the organization's founder's view, would seem to directly weaken the claim that the organization has doubts about its own credentials. My original concern was with WP:NPOV and that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a poster board to cherry pick just that evidence that might be selectively favored. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whale Wars. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. You are very close to violating 3rr, consider taking your concerns to the talkpage. Both warring editors are being warned. Terrillja _talk 01:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Hi, thanks for thinking of me in regards to your note on my talk page. As you know, I am indeed sympathetic to watching out for POV as you have been trying to do. Given the advice you got from BWilkins at the links you showed me, I think it best that I not insert myself directly, but please feel free to get back to me if you'd like me to provide any advice going forward. Also, although it wasn't what you asked, I am watching with great interest what is happening at PETA. I think it a good idea there to let the other editor make her edits, let the dust settle, and then take stock of where things sit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, thanks. If you want some good reading, Google the name of the editor working on the PETA article. She has quite the reputation. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 21:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you (unfortunately). Just see my talk. But peaceful editing is a good thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Don't template regular editors, and please stop trying to cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop mischaracterizing my actions and those of others. You’re already on thin ice as it is. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 02:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

TheHerbalGerbil, Do you care to explain this? I can't see any edit by SlimVirgin (at least not in the past 24 hours) that clearly merits such a warning. You must be responding to an older comment. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and that includes applying template warnings to editors that don't have a clear purpose. --Mysidia (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes: the warning is concerning edits she made Friday night (EDT). I was away between early Friday evening and this evening (see the gap in my edit history) and so didn’t get to read any of it until now. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And now you’ve got me between a rock and a hard place. You’re now assuming ill will on my part. So do I leave it be, and have no warning to cite if I have to take this to admins later? Or do I drop a warning on your talkpage and have you characterize it as more “disruption”? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 03:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your note

You're welcome. I could take a look, but I know very little about it, so I'd need to do some research. I'll keep it on my watchlist anyway, and see if I can help out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it to yourself

Your profanity & personal attacks are not welcome on my talk page. You've stepped over the line, again. Fhue (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

what part of STOP do you not understand? [1] & [2] Apparently your actions warrant admin attention now. (btw, adding your fancypants formatting doesnt make you any more official.) Fhue (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you or do you not want to be communicated with? Make up your mind. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 02:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

AN3

Please just ignore Fhue and let this drop. It's obvious that he shouldn't be editing the archives and there are plenty of editors around to make sure he doesn't; you don't need to take it all upon yourself (and doing could get you in trouble for edit warring, as well). It's obvious you guys don't like each other, with good reason, and nothing good is going to come out of interacting with him further; I think it's best for both of you to ignore one another, and if he leaves you a message there's probably no need to respond to it. In cases like this, one user is so wrong that it's obvious to all of us, you don't need to go out of your way proving it...and you'll probably feel better in the end anyway. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You’re right, of course. It’s a bad compulsion of mine, stemming from a time when I didn’t know how to look up histories and diffs, and another user got me blocked by mischaracterizing my words and actions. The worry is always there, that if I let my guard down, somebody’s going to get away with it again.

Thank you for the intervention and the kind advice. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 03:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)