User talk:24.150.61.63

Old text
Welcome to Wikipedia! May I call you "24" for short? User:Ed Poor

I have no problem with rewrites, they generally improve articles, but I have a big problem with people removing whole articles of relatively uncontroversial stuff that no one else has bothered to define or research at all. Also with people who assume that just because a political party advocates it, it must be somehow biased or wrong.

I am not a "vandal" and don't like that term. I'm getting used to the process here. I am not sure I like serious essays being labelled 'junk' by some golfer or geek.

It's not like I don't have a theory of what I'm doing. Check the entries in the meta defining ethics and NPOV itself. You might see where I'm coming from and why I think certain things are important and others might not be. I want my facts straight, but I don't want to see typo-corrections reversed by a clique of self-appointed gurus. What you need here is a consensus process.

Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative): [list way out of date, deleted, click 'user's contributions'] ... and more, but I think I'll give up trying to list them. Note that the "This user's contributions" link ([here]) actually works, despite the fact that the user has no user name. See also Wikipedia_utilities/Pages_needing_attention.

the user in question: you don't seem too "reluctant", you are reversing careful rewrites without reading them apparently in defiance of protocol.

This one I edited first time without knowing the rules: You are apparently also not distinguishing the generic "Four Pillars" (which may be adopted by any group) from the original FPOTGP as defined by European Green Parties - redirecting one to the other as if they were the same thing.
 * Four Pillars of the Green Party


 * I didn't redirect it - look at the [history]. It was 213.253.39.xxx who did most of the work removing your junk. --Zundark, 2002 Mar 22

If you want to keep playing a game, we'll keep playing a game. I have no problem with rewrites, they generally improve articles, but I have a big problem with people removing whole articles of relatively uncontroversial stuff that no one else has bothered to define or research at all. Also with people who assume that just because a political party advocates it, it must be somehow biased or wrong.

Most of the research comes from National Geographic, on the ape material, although it's hard to quote sources since most of it was TV specials with state of the art information.


 * I am SURE that there is a good deal of scholarly research that has been published on Jane Goodall, Bonobos, and the like. My advice to 24.150.61.63 is this: if you would like to develop or contribute to an article in an encyclopedia (I mean, if it is really important to you and you are serious), why not do a little research rather than just rely on your memory of a TV show or popular magazine?  In general, I would not count on National Geographic specials to be 'state of the art."  Anyway, how would you know -- unless you have done additional research.  And if you have done additional research, please rely on it! SR

24.150.61.63 deleted most of the above, and replaced it with the following:

Zundark sez: Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):


 * Jane Goodall
 * Bonobo
 * Eco-villages
 * Greens
 * Four Pillars of the Green Party

Also sez: "24.150.61.63 inserting idiosyncratic non-NPOV ecology-related stuff all over the place"

and SR sez: "if it is really important to you and you are serious), why not do a little research rather than just rely on your memory of a TV show or popular magazine? SR" and "I wouldn't rely on National Geographic Specials to be state of the art"

The user in question sez:  *EVEN IF THEY WERE MADE IN 2002*??!? Field researchers won't leave the field because they want to protect their subjects. Unlike you I guess, but fine, let's leave motivations *out*...

I am not a "vandal" and don't like that term. I'm getting used to the process here. I am not sure I like serious essays being labelled 'junk' by some golfer or geek.

The material in question is generally pretty carefully researched - more importantly, I understand it. It is you not me who are deleting far more than you have to - and applying a political bias. If that's for lack of time, fine, I appreciate that and can slow down.

Generally one can tell state of the art information by who quotes it. I doubt that some it is published at all - for instance anthropologists arguing about why some Great Apes are hominids by the classic definition, etc..

Why don't I wait for this to be published somewhere? Because they may all be dead first - you'll note I'm not bothering to type in things about Britney Spears or Chandra Levy that I saw on TV... have a sense of priorities, man: I may get some details wrong, but all told, if wiki readers help prevent an extinction of a misunderstood species... I'm not apologizing for the typos.

That said, there are much less important issues:

The Green Party material you are literally mangling by reversing corrections and explanatory extensions. The definition of a Green Party is controversial and the Global Greens Charter is certainly not a sufficient definition of it. If you bothered to go to globalgreens.org you'd see objections to it, and if you lived through the debate between Greenpeace and Green Parties that seems to always get them confused, you'd realize why that needs a section to discuss "non-violence" versus "harms reduction" and can't be simplified.

Frankly, you don't seem too "reluctant", I'd guess you are reversing careful rewrites and whole articles without reading them apparently in defiance of protocol. [Perhaps they will reappear but if so wiki should say 'this is in rewrite']. I appreciate you guys are working without an editor, but really... there must be a better way to deal than calling people 'vandals'.

It's not like I don't have a theory of what I'm doing. Check the entries in the meta defining ethics and NPOV itself. You might see where I'm coming from and why I think certain things are important and others might not be. I want my facts straight, but I don't want to see typo-corrections reversed by a clique of self-appointed gurus. What you need here is a consensus process.

You also don't seem to realize that ecology is a science and defines facts and consensus theory.

That was a very intelligent comment about "Homonidae" which makes note of the difference between taxonomists and anthropologists (and also primatologists).

Other almost-meaningless details:

I have a big problem with people removing whole articles of relatively uncontroversial stuff that no one else has bothered to define or research at all. Also with people who assume that just because a political party advocates it, it must be somehow biased or wrong.

You have a body, you live in an ecology, and without both you'd be dead. So I kind of resent being told that it's "BIASED" to bring up body and ecology issues in an encyclopedia entry, or quote things (like the origin of female breasts) that are not controversial. Just how long have you dudes been here hacking? - Zundark sez: [Neartic, Neotropic (really we should just delete this stuff before it gets totally out of hand)]

I repeat "ecology is a science and defines facts" including Nearctic and Neotropic as the ecoregional names of the North-Central and South American continents. You are trying to delete the entire science of ecology, Zundark.

That will not work.


 * Actually, I didn't mean we shouldn't have articles on Nearctic and Neotropic. (They do, however, need to be properly written.) I just meant that we should delete all your stuff as the easiest way of dealing with it for now. It would be great if someone would come along and convert all your stuff into something encyclopedic, but I don't see this happening at the moment. --Zundark, 2002 Mar 22
 * I haven't seen Zundark around, so evidently he found an "easier way"...

OK, the term "undo" should not be confused with the term "delete" but I hear whta you are saying. I figured this out myself and went mostly to one-liner stub-type articles. Some, like 'ecology movement', were cut down to that but left senseless. Now the only thing it says is that they became Greens - but the fact that ecology movements still exist or what they believe is gone...

It's not just a question of having articles on Nearctic and Neotropic, these are new scientific names for ecozones that correspond to continents just like Homo Sapiens is the scientific name for humans. So scientists going forward are more likely to refer to Nearctic or Neotropic peoples or species than to North and South American, which are colonial names now going out of style... likewise Europe is now considered ecologically aligned with Russia and North Africa while China/Malay is split off from the rest of Asia.

This is a major shift in how people see the world, and I'm not surprised it is surprising to some. But it's not an attempt to push some personal agenda.

I'm just reporting.

If you want, I can report like a Libertarian or a hardcore Communist, but I'm still going to have to differentiate ecologically-real things like Nearctic from ideologically-made-up things like 'class struggle' or 'property rights'.

That's going to make me sound like a Green. But that's also what makes a scientist sound like a scientist.

I'd just ask you to look at your own motivations, and why something like Four_Pillars you consider so objectionable in its edited form, while Electoral_Reform is not.


 * My listing an article here doesn't mean that I object to it. It just means that the article needs to be checked. Electoral Reform is not listed because I hadn't even noticed it. (However, I'm not going to add it now, because it looks like 64.26.98.xxx and 213.253.39.xxx have dealt with it. You could try doing something useful by moving it to Electoral reform, which is where it should be.) --Zundark, 2002 Mar 22

I'm sure you don't want me digging through every entry to find ideological points of view that don't reflect modern scientific ideas of body and ecology, so we have to find some middle ground here somewhere.

Biosafety has three definitions: one in agriculture, one in medicine, and one in trade. I can't explain the three meanings without some attempt at unifying them, and I can't unify them without some reference to ecology and the body. That's going to make me sound like a Green, because only Greens can do this... unfortunately. Biosafety and biosecurity don't make sense if your brain is addled by ideology. They make perfect sense if you view your self as body wandering around in an ecology.


 * only Greens can do this... unfortunately
 * Biosafety and biosecurity don't make sense if your brain is addled by ideology.

Oh dear, we are now getting into the world of 'only we can see the real truth; you are 'addled by ideology'. Unfortunately, that way lies the tinfoil hat.

You may be the One True Messiah, and we may all be disastrously wrong -- but we don't believe that yet.

Our minds are open, truly: if you can convince us that what you are saying represents the real world, please.

Please, attempt to reason with us with argument, backed up with real-world evidence:generally quoting credible sources helps.

Otherwise, we have no reason not to believe that you are a lone nutter. The Anome

24.150.61.63 (may I call you 24?) I'm a card-carrying Green Party member, and I have to tell you, I really think you're going about making your points in a way that's more likely to get them deleted than listened to. May I suggest Wikipedia policy and  Wikipetiquette for starters? This is an evolving society all its own, and it has developed certain standards of interaction based on the Founding Fathers Larry and Jimbo. ;)

We don't ask you to change your opinions, or even to not include information. However, there's a definite consensus againt including viewpoint as fact, rather than "facts about opinions" as the NPOV has it. Certainly you have your own paradigm through which you view all these events; I might even agree with you on some of it. However, you cannot demand that this encyclopeda adopt your paradigm. It has its own: the attempt to portray a "balanced" summary of the current state of human knowledge.

It also has a fair number of academic and scientific sorts working on it, which means that academic standards on references and scientific rules of evidence are quite often invoked when a point is disputed. Luck to you in future contributions! -- April
 * I agree, April, that 24 can be damaging to his own cause, while Zundark is there like a bull in a china shop at the other end of the teeter-totter. The true NPOV is likely somewhere in between.  Eclecticology
 * somewhere between Natural point of view, and the current French or German mass media view maybe.

24 here: I don't object to a single blessed word of this. In fact I'm very pleased that you're on the case. It shows there is a consensus process here, that it's not unanimous (i.e. always blocked until a dictator shows up), etc.

I'm also pleased that "academic standards on references and scientific rules of evidence are quite often invoked when a point is disputed." That's as it should be.

However, most of the issues with my writing have been with regard to ecology, which is where I made reference to these standards from day one and even went out on a limb to ensure that political material supposedly based on ecological theory was using the right words to describe the right thing in advance of some Green group agreeing on it. In my experience if no one does that we never see it done... if you're a Green Party member, you know how many irrational objections block things.

Now, I don't want to make work for people who don't have a feel for the material, I'm pleasantly surprised at how many people are on the case here, and I'm willing to make a profound and detailed case for why these things are defined as they are - each of them. I'll use the "talk" feature for that as things come up.

I'm in a rush for other reasons - I've been working on this material for a long time, I'm going to lose online access for a while, and I would like to make sure that there's a starting point for genuine experts in each topic to correct, edit, update, etc..

If you know anything about ecology or Green politics, you know that it's a movement of specialists, and that people who can write such articles in plain language are rare. People who can actually write neutrally are even rarer.

Maybe I'm not one of them.

So, here's what I can do: First, I can explain exactly how I define neutral - I already did that in the NPOV article itself, and differentiated a thing called "natural point of view" which pretends not to rely on human adult type socialization. I didn't say I could do it - I said it exists.

I realize there's a bit of a gap when "body and environment concerns" doesn't parse...

Also, I can explain exactly how I see ethical balances between the "neutral" and "natural" view - and what moral foundation they rest on. The "Simple View of Ethics and Morals" was good when I found it - but now it's really the best short guide to the subject anywhere. I encourage you to read it and see if you agree. If not, we should have that discussion before we have this one.

I'd like to help you get to 100,000 articles, hell I could write 10,000 myself, but first you have to trust that I'm at least more right than wrong, and that the way I write these things will bring in more expert helpers than just leaving them blank or incompletely defined.

Maybe it's just me, but i think i don't like 24, his attitude to wikipedia and way of writing (for example in his revision of NPOV). szopen

I did that fairly early on, in response to some outright censorship - some of which is documented above. Last I saw it was reversed. It's not at all clear what is the central arbiter of policy here, since there's no single editor. I'd appreciate a discussion of that.

I don't give a damn who likes me, my writing, or my attitude. However, I am here to cooperate, and there's no point denying that one of the things that I'm here to change is the idea that NPOV always means compromise with socially prevalent errors.


 * We are here to report on society, not to judge what its errors are and certainly not to attempt to change those errors. If you have a political agenda, which is pretty clear to the most casual observer, you may want to consider pushing this agenda in other forums. AxelBoldt


 * all I want to push is you - back into the math which you understand, and out of the politics and philosophy that you don't. Everyone has a political agenda, and mine is reflected in my choice of subjects, and sources, not in advocacy.  Among sane people, the body and its surrounding ecology are real, and mathematics and physics are fantasies that create nuclear weaponry somehow.  In a safe happy world we'd likely abandon the math and physics and spend more time on dance or gardening.  The errors of US or EU society are not the errors of real human society, which they have lost.  Accordingly it is normal that you would see "a political agenda" in something that reduced your own relative power.

I can prove to the satisfaction of any expert that "natural point of view" and "neutral point of view" are not the same thing.


 * That's obvious. Your chosing the same initials NPOV for your unpopular policy is a deliberate attempt to muddy the water. AxelBoldt


 * It's plenty popular with the six billion people on Earth who see themselves as victims of the US mass media and its true believers. Sorry to disappoint, Ax baby, but "natural law" and "natural sciences" preceded "neutral" by a lot.

The baby brother of these arguments is the ones about Eurocentrism, the middle brother is the arguments about dominator culture and mathematics, adn the big brother argument is that someone always knows what's "Natural" better than you do.

So, every new entry to wikipedia is going to change its political and ethical tone. That's life.

So, you don't like me, and maybe I don't like you. Fine. For this to work, you'd have to say *why*, or how you think my work biases wikipedia.

Go ahead. The floor is yours.

You don't like me, i don't like you, at least one thing settled. I am just one of many contributors to wikipedia - i would say one of probabably less important, but officially none here is more or less important. You can safely ignore me (and others). I know one person who is constantly ignoring anything what i (and at least five or six different other persons) am trying to told her.

Why i don't like you? Quite simple.
 * "The "Simple View of Ethics and Morals" was good when I found it - but now it's really the best short guide to the subject anywhere."

I've read it. I must say this entry _is good_. But i would hesitate to call it the best. And definetely i would hesitate to call it the best if i would write it. Moreover, simple conclusion one take from reading that article is that ethics in fact do not exist. I don't like label "most societies consider some acts as bad for society". Most people consider some acts as bad, period.

While much good can be told about simple view of ethics (Although now it is not simple view), i was really confused when i read your contribution to NPOV. Maybe it is because i am not native English speaker - therefore youcould treat me as equivalent of four year child to whom you are trying to explain something - but i considered one point as being direct attack on one person, and, instead of contributing to general policy of wikipedia, being direct answer to some problem which should be discussed elsewhere on talk pages - and last points i understand as you are trying to convince that in fact there is no neutral point of view and one should not care about everything all others write and agreed to.

And others articles are too overloaded with eco-newspeach. I was born in communist country and similar speeches i've read before only before 1989. Eco-this, eco-those, just like pre-1989 everything was class struggle and efect of natural history processes. szopen

actually, I am starting to like you a bit. ;-)

OK, here's what I've done. The stuff you didn't like in NPOV is now in natural point of view where it doesn't pretend to be policy. I should have done that from the start.

Second, I don't deny that you have the right to claim certain things as being morally absolute - including moral relativism if you want - and I don't pretend to understand the actual life of someone ni Poland,, and I sure don't intend to tell you what your body means or what ecology is. Still less its political consequences.

But I hope we dont disagree that we are both breathing, drinking water, etc., and have a certain shared bodily interest in keeping those things going. That there *is* some kind of natural point of view that we share by both being human.

Third, where I draw the line: I'm not responsible for other people's abuses of "eco-speak". I am more careful than most other writers about atton political sciciences, but I cam not going to pretend that I believe that primate extninction isiinction doesn't deeply disgust me etc. - I am going to find references that make a point of that, which are increasingly easy to find.

Fourth, ethics is what we are doing right here right now: hashing out our differences to de-escalate them so they don't lead to bigger conflicts, side-taking, and the like.

So, it exists, but it isn't a matter of me imposing a moral point of view on you. In fact my idea of ethics *is* the Four Pillars and the consensus process that they represent.

It wsa necessary for me to update some of that other material just so that I'd be able to go back and make clear that this is not just a list of four idealistic goals, but the specification of a process tthat I see as scientific and rigorous as mathematics or physics.

Perhaps even strong enough to replace peer review, trust in particle physics, representative democracy, etc., although I'm not claiming anyone is anywhere near that today.

Is that like Marx or Hegel and the end of history? Yes. Do I share the willingness to take shortcuts by violence? Not at the moment. But talk to me after a Great Ape is extincted in the wild, and see what I say then. Everybody can change their mind about life and their place in it.

In general, I write articles that strongly understate and even conflict directly with my view on something - you can tell my politics from *what I write aboout* rather than *how I write about it*.

I think that's the socially acceptable way to proceed... don't you?

BTWI like the "Orange Alternative" and I wish it was here at the moment...;-)

This is to thank TheAnome, AxelBoldt, szopen and Ed Poor for recent exchanges, all of which have been enlightening. And of course for the articles which get better as a result of your critiques.

Hello, I've been accused of being a paranoid turkey before, and maybe I'm due for it again--but are you sure you want your complete (apparently static) IP address as your login? I'm assuming you must be quite confident you have an unbreachable system, and if so, kudos to you. I certainly wouldn't dare it. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi

I simply don't care about most snooping type breaches, nothing of value here that I don't already share to best of my ability, and I'm choosing namelessness not for some made-up ideas about "security" or "anoynimity" but simply because I consider reputations themselves hazardous to bodily health of this planet and its creatures. If I'm hacked or hunted down for what I write, fine, that's at least sharing bodily risk with hundreds of other folks who put their lives on their line to discover and share various types of truth.

If I'm going to state flatly that I believe that people who believe in a long list of scientific dogmata are going to die violently for those beliefs, then moral accountability requires me to make myself available to be killed by the believers - this is easily enough done by revealing an IP number for traces... I am absolutely committed to sharing all information regarding body risk... if some poor fellow like Axel Boldt thinks that his particle physics foundation ontology is the absolute truth and will remain the foundation ontology of all future societies, fine, let him come kill me as obstacle to his dominator culture. Likewise, if Unabombers don't want the non-violent competition, or think I'm enabling gollums, they can unabomb me too with a little work. Fine.

Arrogant? Sure. I didn't reveal this IP as a matter of policy. But I am not scared by it. Why shouldn't you guys all know what the NSA always knows?


 * 24, you are taking life way to seriously - calm down, enjoy the ride, have fun. We live in an open and arguably free society in which anyone can do bodily harm to anybody else if they are determined enough. So what? Why write your hands off about it? --maveric149, Wednesday, April 3, 2002


 * I tried to redirect "fun" to wikipedia which ought to be non-controversial


 * I don't know who "we" are, or why "we" will always live in this "open and arguably free society". Personally I expect to move from this relatively low level of risk to much higher levels over my lifetime, and developing habits of disclosure related to bodily harm is a sound strategy if one wishes to face down killers on their own turf, which I do.  I type so fast that it's no skin off my nose to explain myself.


 * the most profound debates about the value of freedom and anoynmity and bodily harm are conducted at http://greenpeace.org - by far the world's most rigorous organization regarding "outing" activists or advocates, researchers or whistle blowers. Do a google.com search on "Greenpeace XXX" where XXX is "etiquette", "anonymous", "anonym", "noms", "freedom and dignity", "bodily harm", "body value", etc.  I don't think anyone that hasn't browsed over there really understands the issues involved in organizing controversial activities online.  And in many places, knowledge is itself very controversial.

24,

Let me try to explain to you about logging in.
 * it is not you who will explain to me, but me who will explain this to you.

It does not provide you with LESS anonymity, but MORE. You can still call yourself '24'. The primary advantage of logging in is that it would provide you with increased anonymity,as your ip number would be fully masked.
 * I've said this before - I don't give a damn who can find my body. I give a damn who insists on witchhunts.  But, whatever...

A secondary advantage is that you make it easier for the people you are trying to persuade... easier to find your comments.
 * I'm not trying to "persuade" anyone. If you can't follow your own conventions, that's not my problem.  And, so far, you show little ability to follow them.

Your 'groupthink' objection to logging in makes no sense to me. Will the act of logging in somehow compromise your individuality? When you log in, will you automatically start to see things my way? I don't think so. Logging in is simple and a very tiny technical matter -- your refusal to log in serves no purpose
 * nonsense. You don't understand "groupthink".  But Larry does, and is propagating it.  whatever.

except to increase people's perception of you as being an immature crank who can safely be ignored.
 * whatever. I accept being ignored.  And I am by no means concerned about being considered a crank, by cranks.

If you wish to have positive influence, you must consider the context of the people you are trying to influence. Some will be hostile to you no mattter what. Others, perhaps, will agree with you no matter what.
 * whatever. I'm not trying to influence anyone.  I had some old research to share.  If you don't want it and my best efforts to share it, fine.  I don't need abuse, I don't need people speculating as to who I am or what I want, I don't need this shit, period.  Certain people are hostile to me because they are hostile to their own body, or this planet, or whatever.

But there's a large group in the middle, who are sincerely waiting to hear what you have to say, and who are willing to follow your arguments over several days or weeks in order to understand. But it is precisely this group who you alienate by refusing to log in. Jimbo Wales
 * no, I alienate people who do not understand online collaboration, like Larry. I'm not interested in having an argument followed over days or weeks - that shouldn't be required if these people are doing their jobs.

I moved the talk from 24's user page. I took the liberty of extracting a few key sentences to form a stub for him. I realize that user's typically create their own user page, and by no means do I intend to imply that I have a "right" to mangle someone's user page. I just thought I'd help him get started.

Kind of like the granny in My Neighbor Totoro who cleaned up the old house when she heard the professor's family was going to moving in. . . Ed Poor

No reason to be sorry for what you have done Ed -- 24 has proven him/her/its-self unable
 * uninterested in some things, perhaps.

to do the simplest of things by themselves (such as follow our guidelines, standards or for creating a user page to act as a central place for others to chat with him/her/it, for example). Thank you for creating and organizing this page for this person. Regards --maveric149, Wednesday, April 10, 2002
 * I'm not interesting in chat. I'm interested in governance, and articles, and whatever talk is required to collaborate on a good article.

OK, I think I see the problem. Wikipedia is not about finding absolute truth. 24, you may be completely, absolutely right, but if everyone does not agree with you then it cannot go into the Wikipedia. I remember seeing this on Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some people would adamantly say there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he resurrected, so they insisted that they were right and that is what should go in the Wikipedia. But, many disagree. So, we have to represent both sides.
 * that title chooses a side. I don't think any of my titles have chosen sides, and I don't think that any of my articles have failed to outline a good set of objections to views presented.  That's quite unlike this Resurrection situation.

He may have resurrected, He may not have, but Wikipedia can't take a stand on the issue, it can only say who believes what. We're here to present facts, not opinions or beliefs. Simply put, Wikipedia's goal is to present the facts from each side fairly and allow the reader to decide from that what to believe. --Chuck Smith
 * who is "everyone"? how do we know if they "agree"?  What is presented here that is anything other than a flat account of what's going on in the field?  Obviously our impressions of that differ.

Again, I would like to urge you all to stop feeding the troll. --Larry Sanger
 * so, your position is what? That there is no value in any of these topics or any of my references?  That these controversial topics can somehow be covered without controversy and argument?  Some of them are a little specialized or a little premature or hard to characterize in terms of an encyclopedia founded by yourself - so what?  Eventually, you must encounter these topics and deal with them.  However, your fanatical commitment to ad hominem argument suggests to me that you have no intent of comprehending any of these topics or the reasons why there might be controversy about them necessarily.  In your entire tenure as editor you did not deal with any of the above topics adequately, and you complain about what?  About your own lack of control maybe?

Even if you don't wish to choose a user name, you could sign what you write in thread mode, it would make it easier to read the discussion. For that matter, why not register "24" or "TwentyFour" as a user name? -- Tarquin I've only just walked in on this, but if your aim is to remain anonymous it's doomed: tales of your exploits have reached MeatballWiki... BTW, this page is TooBiGToEdit, the letters crawl along as I type them in Mozilla like a tired Jessica Fletcher. Maybe split into "Anonymity" and "Content" or something? -- Tarquin
 * I was leaving that for Larry, who seems to wish to discredit me thoroughly, and could do so easily by registering those names. I like to be accomodating.  I don't actually intend to do much more talking on the wiki, as it only seems to put the clique in a more terrified defensive position.

Example
Hey, I was wondering if you could take a look at physical capital and maybe give examples or elaborations as per the confusion cited? I don't think it's a really clear definition to those not familiar with economics. Thanks :)

Jdu22 03:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Contact
Hi, I found a lot of your editing very interesting and it looks like you know about Global Resource Bank? I am interested in developing articles around Ecological Economy and Natural Capital.

lennart_bylund@yahoo.se --Swedenborg 08:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bodily harm
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Bodily harm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bodily harm
An editor has nominated Bodily harm, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Property damage
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Property damage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Property damage.  Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Property damage
I have nominated Property damage, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Property damage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Tribal Revolution
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is New Tribal Revolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/New Tribal Revolution (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Sacred geometry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sacred geometry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sacred geometry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The most remarkable formula in the world listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The most remarkable formula in the world. Since you had some involvement with the The most remarkable formula in the world redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Four Pillars of the Green Party


The article Four Pillars of the Green Party has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Fails to cite sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Earthling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earthling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Earthling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Instructional capital


The article Instructional capital has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unsourced since 2007"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Safe trade


The article Safe trade has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)