User talk:AdamRetchless

Hello there Adam, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Help or drop me a line. BTW, some of the other biologists have been working on placing taxon tables into organism articles. If you are interested then read talk:Hominid. Cheers! --maveric149

Per your question on my talk page: I hope this helps. :-) --mav
 * 1) If you come across any article that is protected in the future and there is noting on the talk page to indicate why, just ask me or another Admin to unprotect it. We do, rarely, protect an actual article in order to stop Edit war or a single-minded vandal who is focusing their attack on one article. Other than that only non-article policy/convention pages and the Main Page are protected.
 * 2) Help has a lot of good links for you. If you need a boilerplate to copy the place to do that is Boilerplates. Also, if you have a general question about the project or how to do something then either ask me, another Admin or better yet the Village pump (that way other people that may have the same questions would benefit from the responses as well - there is also a faster turn-a-round on responses since most if not all active Admins and most old hands watch that page).

Hi! Just looked at your "notes to self" - the PCR guy is Kary Mullis. --Magnus Manske 19:59 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Good work on the evolution page! Slrubenstein

Adam -- Never, never, NEVER delete Talk pages. They can be archived, but don't delete them. I've reverted Talk:Patent. -- Zoe
 * I've deleted a few talk pages in my time, but only when the discussion was both amicable and concluded, acted on, and obsolete. KQ
 * They really should be archived instead of deleted. But Adam did it unilaterally, claiming all discussion was moot.  -- Zoe
 * Yes, I noticed that he did. But do you really think all talk should be archived?  Imagine the following exchange on  the talk page for, say, Stephen King:  "Good coverage of his work.  Shouldn't we talk about his family, too; he doesn't spend *all* his time in from of the computer.  --AxelBoldt"  // "Yeh, isn't his wife named Samantha or something?  --KQ" // "No, actually it's Tabitha. --mav"  //  "I added a short paragraph mentioning his wife Tabitha, who's also a writer, as well as his children, who are all moved out and living independently now --Zoe"  // "Nice work, Zoe, thanks! --AxelBoldt"  // "Yeh, nice work, Zoe, thanks.  :-)  --KQ" // "No problem.  --Zoe"
 * If I came across those bits above and visited the article & saw that the paragraph added seemed perfectly unobjectionable, then I'd have no compunction in deleting the talk. Leaving it, to me, would be like starting a collection of Post-It Notes in wikipedia.  --KQ

- Hi Adam, thanks for the comment on my talk page and your various edits. I think I've noticed your user name before. Is your research related to RNA, by any chance? (Mine is, in case that wasn't apparent from my edit history.)

Zashaw 01:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Adam. Haven't met you before -- just wanted to say, I didn't know if the anonymous user who changed your user page was you. If it was, sorry for reverting! Just revert back. I assume that anonymous edits to someone's user page are vandalism (and they are, 90%+ of the time), so that's why I reverted them. Hope I did the right thing. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:26, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Jwrosenzweig, I did in fact make those edits. However, I do appreciate your vigilace. I had been worried that someone would think it was vandalism, but I thought the nature of the edits would be innocuous enough to pass. Anyway, no harm done. AdamRetchless 23:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, deleting a big paragraph is not necessarily innocuous. Good call. -adam (two minutes later)
 * Thanks for being understanding. :-) Should I remember that IP (i.e., is it your static IP?) if it makes edits to your user page in the future, or should I revert anons here regardless?  Just trying to be helpful, Jwrosenzweig 23:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't bother memorizing the IP address... it would change regularly. I'll probably avoid making changes without signing in. AdamRetchless 21:36, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Adam, unfortunately your request for adminship only reached 60% support, primarily as you are still very new to Wikipedia. The details are archived here. Good luck with any future application you make. Angela. 07:10, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

anarchism
Good edit. Sam Spade 20:39, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Molecular biology
Hi Adam. Compliments on some of your biology work. Would you mind reviewing a page that I've created? It's eicosanoids. The diagram has been drawn from several sources. I'd be delighted to hear your views. JFW | T@lk  21:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

your unidentified flowers
I collect very different and interesting plants. I don't really have any flowers however my mother keeps a garden.

Your Number six is definately a Daffodil and number one and seven are probably Daffodils too. The taxonomy of Daffodils is quite large but they are all of the Narcissus family. Number 8 also could be a Narcissus hybrid. Number two is definately a type of violet (viola genus) the common violet is viola papilionacea but yours is too blue. Number 5 is prolly a forget-me-not (myosotis scorpioides). Number nine is a wild pansy (Viola tricolor). My mother thinks the number three is a clematis but no confirmation is possible. We don't have any idea what the number 4 is.

I realize that you are on indefinite vacation but should you return this will be here. I might also break down and categorize your pictures.--metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  03:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Energy Development and Hubbert's Peak Theory
There is a little storm brewing at Hubbert peak concerning, well, many things. But currently concerning how to organize information concerning future development of energy schemes (phrased as "Oil Alternatives" or "Future energy development" depending on whom you ask). As you might guess, Hubbert Peak is an article that might be expected to draw a lot of public interest and heat; Energy development is not. We could use your input regarding how to proceed. Visit Talk:Hubbert Peak to contribute. Thanks for your consideration. Tom - Talk 21:07, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of Classical definition
The Wikipedian community has saw fit to delete The Classical definition of republic. I found more corraborating evidence and, on the Votes for Undeletion, They are still voting to keep it deleted. I think this is highly unfair. Is there a cabal going around voting things off that they don't like? I have put external link to Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and they delete that also. It has been deleted twice from Republic. What's going on here? Wikipedia is not "Free and Open-Content". There is a group controlling what gets said around here. I have been reading about "Republics" all my life. I even quote from a Modern Scholary work that used the term "Classical Republic". And they still delete. Something is not right here. WHEELER 15:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Classical definition
The Wikipedian community has saw fit to delete The Classical definition of republic. I found more corraborating evidence and, on the Votes for Undeletion, They are still voting to keep it deleted. I think this is highly unfair. Is there a cabal going around voting things off that they don't like? I have put external link to Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and they delete that also. It has been deleted twice from Republic. What's going on here? Wikipedia is not "Free and Open-Content". There is a group controlling what gets said around here. I have been reading about "Republics" all my life. I even quote from a Modern Scholary work that used the term "Classical Republic". And they still delete. Something is not right here. WHEELER 15:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

copyright
Hi. I would like to use Image:Diplodocus carnegii statue.jpg under the CC-By-SA-2 licence. I will use it on my site. Thanks, answer to my talk page. It's a great pic. NSK 02:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the Hindu
Thanks! It certainly does get to the point I was trying to make. Still, I am no expert in Indian history of Hinduism, so I never really tried to push the point in the discussion of Hinduism, or to edit the page. Maybe the article you sent me will inspire me to (or maybe inspire you?) Slrubenstein  |  Talk  14:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to serve example or ripped asunder....
Wikithink tank lightningrod may be well equipped to assit. I have worked up an example for people to debate pros and cons. I hope this is an ok place to duplicate until we establish a better setting. TTLightningRod 16:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have worked some editing towards inclusion, and away from revulsion. TTLightningRod 17:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I wanted to try and write something in first person as best I could. Independance rightly reduces to one, upon which a constitution for many must lawfully stand.


 * I hold, that a Declaration of Independence is a "living" document. It must be restated, reworded, translated, transmitted...  all simply striving toward a perfection untenable. Of such value to humankind, that it should remain as task in perpetuity.

To all those who may try: To ignore Declarations of Independence, written or spoken Constitutions, Bills of Human Rights. I say to ignore, burn and trample you may with all your might. Yes, with all your might, even should you strike me down.

For it is my capacity infinite to declare, to write, to acknowledge anew, these truths self-evident. Drawn from a spirit which burns within me, the same spirit which burns within all humankind, burning within countless hearts and as common as the stars burning in Heaven.

My covenant with Humankind, Earth, and the Heavens Universe.....

In the unfortunate event that good people may find themselves outside the jurisdictions of states such as Montana, Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska or other such places affirming the declarations of independence, constitutions, and bills of rights; Good People everywhere are invited to declare their independence from all who may otherwise infringe.

This is one of infinite examples, to remind authority of my right to independence. A Wiki of The Unwashed Masses Constitution, with Rights innumerable, and a Rule Golden to humankind.

Self evident, although worth repeating:

Any sovereign, which may naturally be reduced to even a single Individual, irrevocably possesses a collection of Rights, (de jure ab initio ad infinitum).

Among these many inalienable rights are included such joys as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Whether boisterously proclaimed from mountain tops, quietly whispered to a lone fellow, silently thought of deep within the mind, or even should it fail to enter one single neuron, these Rights may never be revoked, rescinded, nor abandoned without recovery.

ONLY in cases brought through findings by a rightful jury and unfailing due process, wherein an otherwise enjoyed right has been infringed, may a sovereign be otherwise infringed. (this is also known as the Golden Rule for short, and a measure by which to gage verdicts seeking balance between violation and reparation)

To offer the future reader, or contestants at law, an idea of this authors demands, to illustrate concepts of common good, and to hint at only a few of the items found in an innumerable Bill of Human Birth Rights such as:

The Right to air. The Right to water. The Right to flora and fauna sustenance. The Right to contract, commerce, trade and barter without adheasion, nor clause obscurity. The Right to a given name, to an alias, to privacy and even to flawless anonymity not used in evasion of the Golden Rule. The Right to rome, to circle, to locate, to settle and resettle. The Right to swim, to walk, to fly, to orbit, to journey and certainly The Right to voyage endless. The Right to be informed by anyone. The Right to inform anyone. The Right to see. The Right to hear. The Right to think. The Right to say.

Infringements upon such Rights as these may find one, or many, called before civil or criminal contests at law. As humankind is also known to be reactionary in cases where survival becomes thrown into harried doubt, cognizant trespasses or even transgressions absent of malice, may trigger defenses whether balanced or otherwise.

Thus remains this Constitutions most sobering item; For every member of Humankind, a word supremely void of any recognition to meanings such as sex, race, age, creed nor any brand of mental wanderings, ALL of us posses the full spectrum between a loving humanity, and a hateful decrepitude.

Is this not our Truth inescapable?

For if We can not be given freewill by other men, then it must be inherent or by Heavenly Spirit. To choose for ourselves, or as individuals together, weather to kill our fellow humanity in unGodly fratricide, or whether to simply infringe upon our fellow humanity at great risk to its unbounded defense.

Or We can choose to imagine into Being such dreams as peace and love, enterprise and prosperity, maybe even a small ray of heaven for every last rider upon this tiny blue globe.

So to grow the Unwashed Wiki Constitution, I have a few more ideas to add:

Since many of mans predilections involve "contests", from simple child games to athletics, business to prosperity, once survival dilemmas (real or imagined) inter the playing field... man becomes quite "natural" in contests of War.

And as War is so easy for man to make, and disturbingly easy for some men (maybe less driven by rightful survival, but rather Greed?) So naturally a War-Maker would try and convince "other" men to make War in his stead, thus cunningly spill benefit back to the first man.

Since humankind inseparably carries the dualities of Love and Hate, War and Peace, Light and Dark... Then I offer that our Constitution fully embrace these dualities, and for the reader of the future, or re-writer, or even the autodidact Phenix rising in otherwise isolation and declaring ones independence...

That We can also choose between contests of the sword, or brilliantly impressive contests of the pen.

So this is a clarion call... Try as one might to ignore the Phenix-like spirit of free people, to ignore history and all her lessons, to ignore the guns, shouts, whispers, or even silence of Humankind and her love of Life.... this is a clarion for the never ending War of the Pen.

To exercise, show, and demonstrate that love of independence, freedom, and liberty are as natural and spiritual to all humankind, as is looking to the heavens and asking God, "why?"

Note: This think tank is simply a current forum, however We shall never be dependent upon it or any such construct. That people will always come and go, some will hold high freedoms documents as others will burn them. This is no matter, humankind carries within her the Phenix of Liberty. Will always, and forever, give rebirth to the Truths Self Evident.

libertarianism
I think you're mostly right on the Chile quote. I responded on the libertarianism talk page. I'd be interested in your opinion about the article as a whole&mdash;I've made some pretty major changes in the past week, so some things are choppy. Thanks in advance, Dave (talk) 04:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Working class
Please respond to an inquiry regarding your edit at Talk:Working_class Fred Bauder 00:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think consolidation of working class with social class is appropriate, just an introductory survey of the schemas used, followed by through exploration of those schema such as the Marxian which do hold the classification significant. While it can be accurately reported that some schema do not use the concept "working class" it is not appropriate for their views on the characteristics of the working class to be included in working class. They can be included in the article middle class if that is the social class they believe working people fall into. Fred Bauder 02:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pareto index
Since you're the one who changed this page from a redirect to an article saying "the difference is clear", you really ought to make it clear. What is the Pareto index? The page does not even attempt to say! See Talk:Pareto index. I would guess that it's some function of the exponent appearing in the density function, but that's just a guess, and I should not have to guess. And which function??? I have no idea. It's really very badly done as it stands. Michael Hardy 20:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've taken care of it. Michael Hardy 00:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Future Combat Systems Mounted Combat System
What do you mean by "normative statements" in this particular article. Can you give examples, and explain why they make the article non-neutral or non-objective? --AlainV 02:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

hibernation
Gimme a holler when Wikireason comes back. Fephisto 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam
Hey adam... wanted to touch base with out regarding wikireason. can u drop me an email at mtrout AT Eduit DOT org. I miss not having access to it.

Michael

Wikireason
When will Wikireason be open again?--Fang 23 00:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also interested in Wikireasons. I am a college entrepreneur at Colorado School of Mines working on a very similar project and would like to learn from what's out there so the next crack at a similar site can be successful (or help out if it's still active) -- Benjamin Wilson 2 Nov 2022 (message me on LinkedIn or at c o d e k i n g (at) c o m c a s t . n e t)

Approval Voting: Did you write this?
I don't suppose you were responsible for adding this bit of text to the article on Approval Voting?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approval_voting&diff=prev&oldid=7115580


 * ===Relation to effectiveness of choices===
 * Operations research has shown that the effectiveness of a policy and thereby a leader who sets several policies will be sigmoidally related to the level of approval associated with that policy or leader. There is an acceptance level below which effectiveness is very low and above which it is very high. More than one candidate may be in the effective region, or all candidates may be in the ineffective region. Approval voting attempts to ensure that the most-approved candidate is selected, maximizing the chance that the resulting policies will be effective.

This was contributed anonymously. Did you forget to sign in? You did the edit just before this. I think this is a very important paragraph, but it wasn't cited, so I requested a citation on it, about a year ago, and now someone's deleted it for lack of a citation. Any help would be appreciated! --CKL —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

List of books on non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life
Hi, this article has been nominated for deletion. Please find link to discussion of this nomination on article's page. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of books on non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of books on non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life. 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/List of books on non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life. 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) 01:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

If you're still active, please contact me on the e-mail address below. It's about Wikireason/-debate, and all the similar models out there. We're reviving the project, but this time we'll plan, plan, decide, execute and show how a debate should be. Right now we're assembling all possible human resources interested (or was interested) in this project. I'm currently in contact with argument philosophers and deliberative democracy experts at my university. We don't only need funding, but expertise on all aspects: argument theory, philosophical theories on the sound debate, intuitive user interface design, and so on. (remove spaces) t e i t e p o s t a d r e s s e ( at) hotmail. com

Please invite others as well. I'll collect adresses while my partner establishes a simple forum for discussing phase 1 (planning and deciding on the web-solution). My personal goal is 30 or more people like ourselves, before we really start deciding and choosing the best options. Sda030 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Injustice (band)


A tag has been placed on Injustice (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Specialization (functional)


The article Specialization (functional) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Poorly-written, WP:DICDEF-like stub that duplicates Division of labour and Multicellular organism, effectively covering two unrelated topics. (The last paragraph is of unclear relevance to the topic.)"

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. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 00:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)