User talk:Duncharris/archive11

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * NB: Trolling will be removed. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives

Archives of old discussions:

One / Two / Three / Four / Five / Six / Seven / Eight / Nine / Ten

Misunderstanding of spiritual science
Philosophers such as Dilthey and Husserl advocated recognizing that there can be sciences (they used the term "Geisteswissenschaften", sciences of the mind/spirit/human being) that are not empirically based in outer perception, and yet are fully scientific. (The Wikipedia article on Dilthey mentions this briefly.) Steiner was also part of this (largely Germanic) philosophical tradition, and called anthroposophy a "Geisteswissenschaft" (human study, but literally spiritual science), not a "Naturwissenschaft" (natural science). Philosophers grounded in the German tradition will certainly comprehended the distinction.

Geisteswissenschaft is the standard German term for what English-speaking peoples call the humanities. Dilthey, Husserl and Steiner were thus calling what they did by the same name as the humanities generally go by in German, and what Dilthey defended as the "humane sciences": though neither quantitative nor empirical in the same sense as the natural sciences, yet qualitatively exact and rational. In his late period (cf. The Crisis of the European Sciences), Husserl used the word Geisteswissenschaft to refer to an explicitly spiritual science, not just the humanities generally; Steiner also follows this usage. All of these thinkers believed that the natural sciences should not claim a monopoly on scientific approach; though the humane sciences would not copy their quantitative empiricism, they would still have a valid claim to the term 'scientific'.

Perhaps a completely different terminology would have to be found in English for this to be readily comprehensible to English-speakers. However, one usual translation &mdash; the almost exclusive one for Steiner's work &mdash; is "spiritual science". To declare these philosophers' work pseudoscientific is badly to misconstrue their cultural context. They are not claiming it to be natural science. Hgilbert 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:*(
Sad day. Guettarda 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, Christiano Ronaldo is a wanker, we won't get any favours from a Argentine referee, but we were never going to score any anyway, even with the boy wonder on the pitch. Might end up supporting Germany as the only Northern European team left now.  We're still world champions at rugby and have the ashes. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornuke
Some Cornuke supporter, cornuke himself?, is making a bunch of incorrect claims. --Cornukechecker 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant!
Wit. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on Simetrical's RfA.
I'd like to see you returning to this RfA to give reasoning for your "vote". I don't believe it is polite, civil or acceptable to give an expression of opposition to an RfA with the reasoning "No.". This is exceptionally rude, and I'd like to see some reasoning - rudeness aside, your vote is likely to be discounted if it fails to provide reasoning. Werdna (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I opposed, as is my right. Your own RFA failed, perhaps for similar reasons. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 08:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You are being exceptionally uncivil. Speculating on my own RfA of two months ago, referring to my actions as "trolling", making the vote itself, refusing to clarify your reasoning, and referring to other voters as "too stupid to realise that" is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Please stop this behaviour or you will be blocked for incivility. This was within the bounds of acceptableness, but still a little harsh and probably didn't help the situation. I'm withdrawing this part of my comment Werdna (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. The guy who harrasses you about your vote now threatens to block you for you "incivility".  I assume this is an attempt at humour?  Guettarda 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is no attempt at humour, nor is this "harrassment" of any kind. I find the behaviour listed unacceptable. Werdna (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You find a simple clear "No" "exceptionally rude", you troll ("your vote is likely to be discounted") and now you're threatening a block? Perhaps you might consider stepping back from the situation and taking a few calming breaths. You're not making much sense here, and you are harassing and threatening someone for no other reason than your dislike for his oppose position on an Rfa of which you are the nominator. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you've ever been an RfA candidate, you'll know that every oppose vote hurts. You'll also know that oppose votes without any reasoning hurt even more. The last thing the candidate needs is an oppose voter with no reasoning calling everybody else "stupid" and accusing those who question him about it of "trolling". That is not acceptable. Werdna (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Some of what you said has merit, and I've decided to strike part of my comment. I would, however, like to know where I called him a troll. Additionally, I would respond this way to that treatment of any candidate, not just my own. Werdna (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Devil's Bridge
I cannot understand why did you delete (it's not the first time!) content from Devil's Bridge asking to don't change the subject of an article. I seem that YOU changed the subject of the article, which currently contains a general and not limited point of view about Devil's Bridges throughout all Europe. Your version is clearly a violation of Wikipedia rules, as it consists in a deletion of other useful content in favour of a resitrcted point of view... as if you were convinced that THE Devil's Bridge is the Welsh one that you stick on. The current version, that I revised a bit, mantains ALL infos about the Bridges you like so much, so there's no need to blank it back. Let me know and good work!--Attilios 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Cause he's a nationalist douchebag.82.83.47.200 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

rollback
Please only use rollback or other explanation-less reverting to revert vandalism or your own mistakes. If you want to revert because you disagree with an edit, you need to give a reason. See Reverting. Thanks. --W.marsh 19:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want me to stop adding the tag to the page(s), just create inbound links and actually improve those pages and the encyclopedia. There's no need to get rude about it. --W.marsh 23:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They're not unnecessary... those pages haven't been edited in 5 months, and I'm pretty sure it's because no one's seen them, and that's because they're orphan articles. I'm sorry that you're more interested in rude reverting than actually improving the project... --W.marsh 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the page I mentioned above... rolling back good faith edits is considered rude by most editors. Especially doing it 3 times in a row. --W.marsh 16:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

another rollback
I second that. Dunc deleted all my contributions to an article without any explanation and left a veiled insult that I reproduce below. Note that my contribution (see article for Institute for Creation Research) corrected the language used in the article, made it sound more encyclopedic and neutral. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia and not Dunc's sandbox. A question to more experienced contributors, what should I do regarding Dunc's actions: complain, revert back or...? --Osnova 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.— Dunc|☺ 22:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

External links....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishware

How then, does our competitor have the option of putting their link on your wikipedia pages?? I'm referring to External Links/Dinnerware and Tableware Information

Did they write this article? If not, then they should not have access to link their site according to the information you sent me. If all I have to do is write an 'article' for you and then I can link our site, then that's fine. I just want to know what the "rules" are.

Thanks.

Deletion of FelixCheng's copyrighted images
Hi Duncharris,

I have been working with User:FelixCheng recent (see the extensive discussions on his and my talk pages). I note that you have deleted all the images on his user page as "copyvio". These images were based on likely copyrighted images, but he had made substantial changes to them. My understanding of copyright law is these changes allow Felix to claim these new images as his copyright and subsequently license them under the GFDL for use on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear your take on this.

Of course this does not apply to the unchanged images that he had uploaded. Thanks, Gwernol 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Navy Pix
Thank you for uploading the pictures of Westdiep and Van Galen. These are actually my pictures, having taken them on the Navy days at Zeebrugge this weekend, but did not think of putting them on wikipedia yet. What Flickr and CC licenses can be good for! LHOON 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

British trains
Category:British electric locomotives should become category:electric locomotives of Great Britain rather than category:electric locomotives of the United Kingdom, and likewise the same for railway-related ones. This is because for geographic and historical reasons, the railway boundaries do not correspond to the political boundaries. Dunc|☺ 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about British-> Britain. EG: electric locomotives of Britain.  Lexically, it is the correct transformation.  I made that proposal on the scheme talk page, but no one cared much either way.  Alternately, I am perfectly happy to make all the locomotive/train ones map to Great Britain.  I would just like to apply a general rule for the British though so that it will be most predictable for naive users.  Certainly we can put in redirects from the other terms, but You tell me what term should be dominant, and what gets replicated on all the Image pages.  That is the term that will be hit on using google.


 * The basic rationale is to make more uniform the way placenames are used. In queries especially, people seldom use adjectival forms and so it becomes more difficult for folks to find stuff.- I completely agree that noun forms most often create a more wordy, more unnatural phrasing.  If the categories are less poetic, that is a small price to pay for greater accessibility.  There is a minor benefit in that the normalized pattern makes it easier for folks to guess the names of categories.


 * So questions


 * 1) Do you agree British -> Britain is preferable to -> the United Kingdom for the general case?
 * 2) Should the mapping be -> [train objects] of Great Britain for all the train categories affected, or will ->Britain suffice?
 * 3) Do you feel that for the domain of British trains, the negatives of this normalization outweigh the benefits?

Thanks for your feedback. -Mak Thorpe 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A Mediation Cabal case
Hello there, Dunc. I have volunteered to mediate this case, involving acupuncture, acupressure, and others. Please voice any opinions and evidence you have supporting your stance about your edits related to the forementioned pages at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture. Only with your cooperation can the case be resolved peacefully. Thanks! --Physicq210 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Dunc. As mediator of this case, I request your cooperation with us. Only with your cooperation can this be resolved. Thank you. --physicq210 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand that you are acting with backing from other editors and are acting in good faith. However, this MedCab case was brought up specifically to address grievances of Jim Butler (and it listed your name as the defendant, not anyone else's, for some reason), and I volunteered to do so. This case helps concentrate complaints onto one page, instead of scattering it all over Wikipedia. Therefore, may I request that you put your grievances on the page list above, and I can address your concerns from there. It will take a short time, and I will notify you if I need your input if necessary.

Also, it happens that there are more and more complaints about your behavior showing up on the case page. Without your input, it is making it harder and harder for me to deal with their concerns. This is equivalent to a mob asking a powerless judge for your blood, if you see my point. I do not wish to resort to more drastic action, nor give in to their demands without your input. Again, please state your opinion clearly on the page (and please have evidence) so that this may be resolved without further action. Cheers, physicq210 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Kangaroo Court
Your edit accused me of vandalism. Could you please explain? I had asked for citations and discussed on talk page. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Civility and No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing.
 * I have responded to your comments on the article talk page. Suggest you read the policy on citing sources.  Suggest you also find a source if you wish the material to be included in the article - the soure will need ot be reliable and use the workds "Kangaroo court" in reference ot the hearings - otherwise use f the term is POV and original research.  I will revert your edit as you have not produced a source.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Using rollbacks
Dunc, in a content dispute on which you are a party, you should not use your admin rollback button. You've been doing it all the time without any edit summaries. The rollback button is to be used only in case of obvious vandalisms. If you are a party to a content dispute, don't use rollback. Thanks. --Ragib 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, No personal attacks, Mr. Harris
Copied from User talk:Ground Zero:
 * What is your obsession with vandalising links on this page? The link is to Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen, 1st Baron Brabourne, so you change it to Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen claiming to "fix link" -- a blue link to a red one? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 11:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As the edit history of Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen, 1st Baron Brabourne shows, this article was created on July 12, 2006. I changed the link on July 8, 2006 (here), so I did not "vandalise" the page I did not change the blue link to a red link, but one red link to another. I have explained to you how your previous accusation of vandalism on this page was a personal attack and asked for an apology then, which you did not have the decency to provide. Please apologise now for these personal attacks. Ground Zero | t 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

nationalism
Please do not use Edit summaries to make personal attacks. In fact, please desist from making personal attacks altogether, although Edit summary ones are particularly frowned upon. Please read WP:NPA. --Mais oui! 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't personally attacking you, I was commenting on your insistance to move which would tend to break the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it rule". &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OWN. --Mais oui! 18:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing valid category
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Removing articles from valid categories, as you are doing at the H.E. Hinton article, is widely considered to be vandalism here at Wikipedia. Please desist. --Mais oui! 18:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The test templates
Please don't use test3 on a user who you are in dispute with but is not engaging in vandalism edits. I'm giving the same advice to User:Mais oui!. David | Talk 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, do not (again!!) use your rollback privileges to revert in case of edit disputes. The rollback feature is for revert of vandalism, not for edit disputes. --Ragib 18:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Reginald Punnet

 * Hello,

I read the Reginald Punnett article because I was intending to translate it into french. I saw there is a red link on nemertine worms and I thought maybe it should be linked to nemertea. Since I'm neither a biologist nor a native english speaker and I saw you were the first and still active author of this article, I thought I should ask first.

Thank you for having the patience to read my english,
 * Poulos| Talk.

CIE 001 Class
The link added in the previous edit was a legitimate link which explained the unreliability of the engine at the end of the page. Since you gave no reason for reverting the page I have reinstated the version you reverted. I didn't edit the page initially but examined the link for authenticity. Karsini 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning
I posted additions to the page which were factually correct, and removed any pov. Other users edited the additions. I am satisfied with the editing, and the edited content will stay like it is, without interference from myself. --Diggnate 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre nationalism of Mais oui!
On Mais oui!´s talk page you left the following message:

"I'm not personally attacking you, but I don't think you should be going around deciding that everyone has to be English or Scottish or Welsh or whatever. It seems an awfully silly and pointless task, and does seem to imply some kind of nationalistic agenda.  The simplest thing would be to leave them as they are, and leave the original author to decide.  &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)"

I have replied as follows:

"Hear, hear! I have no doubt that Mais oui! has a nationalistic agenda. He has an ownership problem with any article he perceives to be "Scottish".  His constant editing and re-editing of my articles to suit his agenda has put me off writing further articles for Wikipedia.  19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)"  Mallimak 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

James Holden
Why did you state that the page James Holden was vandalized and make it a dab again? I submitted a proposal for move on WP:RM per policy. There were no objections, so it was moved by User:Nightstallion - definitely not "vandalism". If you wanted to object, you should have done so. I plan on reverting both pages soon, so it'd be nice for you to get back to me. Wickethewok 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with GFDL? Also, if you want a disambiguation page, perhaps you should write an article about the subject you wish to link to.  Wickethewok 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing all those links. Wickethewok 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

JMS infobox scientist
Hey Dunc, just curious about the rationale behind the scientist info box revert for JMS. Pete.Hurd 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

J.B.S.H.
Hi Duncharris,

Pls check out the discussion board on the JBS article.

bunix 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust
Sorry, but why do you have changed the link to the article "LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado"? In this article is a link to "A1 Steam Locomotive Trust" which leads to itself because of this ...

Urmelbeauftragter 16:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Locomotive designer
There isn't one correct term for someone who designs a locomotive, and in the USA locomotive engineer is the person who in the UK is called a "driver". "Locomotive designer" has the virtue of being correctly understood worldwide, which is why I made the change. Mangoe 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of rollback
Dunc, using admin-rollback to revert changes that are *NOT* vandalism is not the correct and proper usage of the button. Please refrain from using this for non-vandalism reverts. --Ragib 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Which ones? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To start with, the most recent edits on your talk page, , . A message which by itself is not vandalism, you are free to remove it as it is your talk page, but using rollback is for countering vandalism. Leaving an edit summary would be the civil way to act here. Thank you. --Ragib 22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah but he's wikistalking me and givin me veiled personal attacks, while pretending to be nice. The boy's got a serious attitude problem, so I'll just ignore him. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another misuse of admin rollback. If you don't like a politely given message, remove it, but using rollback is not the correct action. Rollback is only for revert of clear vandalism. You should not use it for content dispute or for removal of messages. Thank you. --Ragib 18:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No that's trolling, which is akin to clear vandalism. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Raymond V. Damadian
Right about that. My post was really, really circumferential,  since mostly corrected,  BTW. However, was due to being in a bind. First, why waste my valuable time on something that is going to get reverted anyway ? I made that mistake the first time I tried to correct this entry. Similarly, it became quite clear after a post or two that any short cuts,  omissions,  etc. to this particular wiki entry were going to get jumped on,  used as an excuse to revert, or the subject of strawmen, etc. So I went overboard to establish "Yes I know that". This should not be necessary.Pproctor 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Damadian
Yes I can write and yes I am literate. See, e.g. this paper and the linked papers. Which ought to also dispel any suspicions that I defend Damadian because I sympathize with his Creationist views. Again, the inpenetrability of what I wrote  was 1) because I am struggling to simplify a rather technical area and 2) avoid providing fodder for the usual suspects.

POV on Damadian


Because this was suggested to me. Makes sense. We have two differing and apparently unreconcilable opinions. If I post over the existing one, my postings will just get reverted,  even though this is supposed to only be used in cases of vandalism and not mere differences of opinion. Why not present both points of view, rather than engage in some sort of war? I'll defend and document mine all day long--- you-all are welcome to do the same. It also gives the true flavor of how everything surrounding Damadian generates controversy.Pproctor 22:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Damadian
"Everything must be neutral"

I agree. But the page that keeps being reverted is hardly neutral...

OK. The first stage must be to get events described in chronological order. Then opinions come second.
 * The Raymond V. Damadian article also must be about Damadian and his career;

Er. That is exactly what I was attempting. The problem is that there are two temporally parallel threads in Damadian's career-- Roughly, these are "structured water" and "MRI imaging". As you indirectly note, attempting to consider them both in chronological order can get very confusing. I'm not the only one--- in fact, confuting the two led to the Urban legend that Damadian did not have imaging in mind.

About YouTube
Duncharris, are the users (the ones who uploaded TTTE episodes on YouTube) clumsy or something? It's because they removed the TTTE episodes. Felix 18:14, 28 July 2006

The Template
Hi! I've been bold and edited the template you created to reflect the special importance of clearly stating your sources when editing controversial topics. I'm seeing to many huge, heavily edited articles with tiny, tiny, reference sections, and I think we should at least make people aware of that on the respective talk-pages.I hope you agree with me, but I'm of course very open to discussion :-) mstroeck 22:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

YouTube
How could Nanaki001 flagged his Sore Ga Ai Deshou music video? (Nanaki001's Sore Ga Ai Deshou music vid features the TTTE clips.) Why would Shining23, jw24, Nanaki001, mousepound64, Canyouguess, supermetriod26, Damo833, TenderEngines and TommyTankers remove the TTTE episodes? Why wouldn't they upload all of them? Felix 17:43, 1 August 2006

Reverting user problem
Hi, the user David D suggested that I come to you for help with a problem I’ve been having recently. It all revolves around the user Laurence Boyce who is consistently reverting changes I make to an article, The Root of All Evil?. He has done this more than 3 now so this is surely vandalism. Every time I edit the article he reverts it and then tells me I have to in effect ask his permission before editing the article again by talking about making changes on the article’s talk page. Please look here to get the high and low of the problem. . Here is an example of what he says:


 * have reverted your edits again George; they're no better in my view. Please don't edit. Talk.

Reverting my edits over and over again and telling me I’m not allowed to edit without talking about it first is surely unacceptable. The argument revolves around a series of subtle NPOV violations regarding the presenter of the program Richard Dawkins. Looking at the complaints on his user page he seems to be launching some kind of campaign against Dawkins but I can’t quite figure out what it is.

The edits I make usually involve editing the Colorado Springs section of the article by adding amongst other things quotes of Pastor Ted Haggard who is speaking with Dawkins during an interview; the centrepiece of this section of the program. The main reason for me to change this section is to add the part of the discussion regarding evolution and the age of the Earth. This may seem unnecessary at first but if you are familiar with Dawkins and his work you’ll know that pretty much all of it regards evolution and the resistance it faces due to religious leaders holding it back. The important quote here is:


 * Haggard: Some people have trouble examining the eye or the ear and believe that that happened by accident.


 * Dawkins: I beg your pardon; did you say by “accident”?


 * Haggard: Yeah.


 * Dawkins: What exactly do mean by “accident”?


 * Haggard: That the eye just formed itself somehow.


 * Dawkins: well who said it did?


 * Haggard: well, some evolutionists would say that.


 * Dawkins: Not a single one I’ve ever met.


 * Haggard: Oh really?


 * Dawkins: Yes, really. You obviously know nothing about evolution!


 * Haggard: Or maybe you just haven’t met the people I have. (chuckles)

Obviously I don’t want to insert all of this; I have written it in such a way as to get the important message across without dragging it out too long. Here are some examples of my edits that were instantly reverted:  

If you believe my sections are indeed poorly written then please tell me so, but I sincerely believe, and I’m sure Dawkins would agree, that is one of the most important quotes in the entire show. That is the main issue but it isn’t the be all and end all. There’s too much to go into here; I’ve probably already taken up to much space. Please can you have a look at the edits, the root of evil article and talk page and my contributions and suggest an appropriate course of action. I will ask you also to have a polite word with the user Laurence and explain to him that he can’t keep reverting pages and tell me I can’t edit – it’s against Wikipedia policy. Also he has been very cocky and rude. Here is something he wrote on the talk page of the article:


 * George, I've reverted your latest bunch of edits plus an anon edit because they're rubbish!

Thanks for your time. Miller 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanford
What data have you against my data?

Root of all evil?
What am I doing wrong?! I though reverting three edits in a row and telling someone on a talk page that they're rubbish “violates” too. Oh well at least I see whose side everyone is one now. I tried.

Miller 11:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

When you say “don’t editorialise” what do you mean by that? Is there a Wikipedia page on the rule I’m breaking? Miller 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Politicization of science
Please stop edit warring on Crichton's account of Eugenics. I've incorporated your POV. --Uncle Ed 16:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, Percy and Douglas pics
Duncharris, thanks for uploading pics of Thomas, Percy and Douglas on my user page. I was wondering if you could upload James for me. Thanks, Felix 19:45, 6 August 2006

Orthomolecular medicine
I gave cites and reasoning for the removal of orthomolecular medicine from the pseudoscience list. Please offer reasoning on the talk page for its retention that would also not exclude mainstream medicine as practiced by quacks. --Michael C. Price talk 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How to use Wiki
Duncharris,

Please note by the time you removed one of my merge proposals, I was already removing it myself deciding a more appropriate way of changing things.

But please note that when somebody proposes a merge, deletion, etc., you cannot just make the change you think best yourself. You must, if you want your say, make your opinion on the appropriate talk page and the proposer will make the appropriate action. If you think this was wrong, you can appeal to Wikipedia.

Please ensure that you follow the rules and guidelines for the benefit of all users.

Many thanks.

Nick

Hoax
Dunc: The issue is not whether or not the individual existed, but whether or not all of the information in the article is true. The hoaxers seem to have been adding little bits and pieces of information, as well as entire articles. Also, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Elonka 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dunc, you are being rude. Please stop. --Elonka 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis Wedgwood
Your early edit to the page states that Francis Wedgwood died in October 1880, although he is listed as alive and well in the 1881 census, living at Barlaston. I wonder whether you can shed any light on this. My interest stems from the employment of my great-great-great-grandmother's brother at the Wedgwood mansion in the 1870s-1880s. Any info you could supply would be appreciated. - Stevecov 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscientists Category
Please respond to my reply on Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_7 and clarify why you think a category is necessary, as opposed to a list. --Wclark 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

All Blacks
Two years ago the naming of this article was discussed. The unanimous decision was to use the most common name. I'm moving it back. Lisiate 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rowntree
Thats weird. Fixed the templates. Cheers mate. Cvene64 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is not really any need for sorry I spell like you comments. I'm not English so I only have a limited knowledge of English rugby. Cvene64 14:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

infobox question
Hi Dunc

I refer to the following message you left me:

''Wikipedia is not suited to complex infoboxes. It is suited to prose, because the database structure is so simple. Don't do something because you think it's l33t. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)''

I'm not sure I understand. Please can you clarify what aspect of the infobox is complex (as compared to, say, a whole article for example). I'm trying to understand what you mean. Also pls can you comment on how the database structure of an infobox is different to that of a typical article. Best regards, bunix 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dunc, I've carefully read your explanation and I still don't understand why an infobox has a "bad" database structure. Please can you tell me what it is about a box that creates a bad structure? In the back of my mind when comparing it to average wiki prose, I see that average prose always has many links. Am I understanding correctly that it is the database structure behind links your are talking about...or are u thinking something different? Like graphics? Pls clarify.


 * Also pls can you explain what features of this particular infobox create a bad database structure, as compared to say the other infoboxes out there...for example, the ones on US Presidents, James Bond Movies, or Astronauts? On the surface of it, this box doesn't look that much different. But I would like to hear your explanation. I don't see these other boxes being deleted, so I would like to know their secret. Best regards, bunix 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, discussion on l33t (that I called 'geekiness') and how one might fix it is at. Please check it out. Regarding the students the short answer is "no" and the methodology/intention discussion is in the 8th from bottom paragraph of. I didn't understand the bit about datastructures, so put some questions about that point in the paragraph (above) dated 11th Aug. Best regards, bunix 13:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dunc, I loved your good taste in using Keira Knightley as an example....however, forgive me for being dense, but I just didn't get the explanation. I'm not sure whether its the indexing of text, links, or graphics that you are talking about. Perhaps, an easier way to put it across to me would be to compare the Scientist infobox with the ones at (say) and . If you can explain why these are less complicated, I think that would help the penny to drop. Best regards, bunix 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Hope you liked the girl in my second link :-)
 * PPS: Noticed you have a photo of the Loughborough Carillion....I've actually been there, of all places. Small world. What's your connection? Also I found your Landover Baptist link hilarious...I assume its a parody....otherwise it would be very frightening!
 * PPPS: Is there some wiki policy or info page that you can point me to, to read up on their database structure thing?

Damadian rollback
A cite accuses Damadian of "whining", rightfully noting that others equally-deserving have kept quite after being similarly passed over by the Noble prize committee. This in itself is pretty strong "editorial opinion". In fact, it is essentially an attack on Damadian for not rolling over and being a team player.

To give balance, I point out that when this happens the Nobel Foundation comes rather close to violating the local Scandinavian rules concerning scientific misconduct. Naturally, I give a link to a published paper on those rules. Nothing wrong with complaining about putative scientific misconduct

This situation again exposes a systematic problem with the Nobel award and one that might be resolved if more people complained like Damadian and Carr. Similarly, The Universal Declaration of Human rights endorses ones right to the "moral" rewards of intellectual property. In such circumstances, registered complaints are quite reasonable. Pproctor 20:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Damadian revert


I gave the reference and a link to it. Here it is again: ("Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries",Lancet. 1999;354(9172):57-61)-- Click on Lancet article. Note the title. I read this journal, BTW.

Not intending to start a flame war, but if you are going to revert,  please at least read what you are reverting.



Good for Damadian, whatever his case. It is about time that somebody complained loud and long about this situation. Actually, if you read Carr's letter,  it is much stronger than Damadian's protest,  if not nearly as loud. He essentially accuses the Nobel winners of citation plagarism. In a dignified way, naturally.



You can't talk about Damadian without talking about the Nobel. You can't talk about the Nobel without talking about Herman Carr. Otherwise, the flavor of this complete screw-up gets lost.



Didn't realize this was a no-no. Mainly, because of the heated argument about the Nobel there. Pproctor 20:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt's alleged discoveries
Hey dude, stop. You're putting nonsense tags on the page, as you're not justifying them on the talk page. If you don't agree with it, speak out on hte talk page. WikiPedia is NOT yours, and WikiPedia has POLICIES if you had no prior knowledge about them. If you put a tag, you shall tell why. Stop bandalising pages. --Arturo #7 19:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi baby
are you still up? Lets do thisCourtney Akins 01:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More Damadian reverts
Why do you keep vandalizing my commentary on Raymond Damadian without discussing things on the talk page, as I have repeatedly requested. As others have noted here, Wiki does not belong to you and you cannot assume an absolute veto power over what others write. I've been posting on Wiki almost since it started. Yet I have never seen such bad behavior as that which seems to revolve around the Damadian page. What is with you people anyway? Pproctor 03:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Virtual Railroad
Duncan, would you like to contact the Virtual Railroad if I can upload the Austrian Goods locomotive? Thanks, Felix 20:49, 13 August 2006

Virtual Railroad
Duncan, would you like to contact the Virtual Railroad? I want the picture of the Austrian Goods locomotive on its article. Thanks, Felix 18:07, 14 August 2006

George Cohen
Yes you're right - I always confuse MBE and KBE. Thanks for the correction.

Sergio

LUElinks
I have noticed that you have deleted the page for "LUElinks". While the existance of the website is questioned, the value of the site, existant or not, is valuable as a term. I do not understand why you would delete this from the wiki. I personally am not a member of the LUE community, but I have in fact seen the interface of LUElinks from someone who is a member. Personally, I think that you're deletion of the page seems to be without merit, as other terms from fiction appear in wikipedia. I am going to request the recreation of the LUElinks page, and I ask that you stop trying to delete material that does not violate any of wikipedia's rules. If vandalism is a problem, I suggest locking the page, not deleting it permanently.

Consensus
Please point to that consensus on the relevant talk pages. Have you read Wikipedia WP:NPOVT? Same idea as WP:CG says about the POVishness of categories. Your use of rollback to revert without comment is inappropriate per WP:DR and WP:ES. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dunc, cross-posting here from my user talk re WP:NPOVFAQ. Also relevant to your argument are giving equal vaidity and making necessary asumptions.  I'm aware of these.  They describe how to apply NPOV, which is non-negotiable.  But same goes for all the other parts of NPOV, like WP:NPOVT.  Our job as editors, like a panel of judges, is to balance all these principles and apply them sensibly.


 * The NPOV tutorial says that says the key recommendation for addressing POV problems w/ categories is WP:Categorization of people, which says:
 * Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization. See also Categories, lists, and series boxes.
 * That echoes the WP:CG guideline, which also describes how to apply the principle of NPOV to categories. See especially general guidelines (#8), and category naming.


 * So how to reconcile all these "non-negotiable" principles? Lots of discussion on this at Talk:Chiropractic and Talk:Pseudoscience, where even skeptical editors like Fyslee and Jim62sch and Kenosis are acknowledging issues with the POVishnes of using the PS category.  Gist of the argument is that fields like acupuncture and chiropractic aren't "reprentatative and unquestioned examples".  A mix of baby and bathwater shouldn't be categorized as "bathwater" because that's misleading to readers and violates NPOV, cf. WP:NPOVT.  Did I mention NPOV was non-negotiable?  ;-)  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A little concerned that you are still using the term vandalism to describe removal of categories, following Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture where you were explicitly warned about this. We could probably get along better in finding a consensus if you refrained from such usage. --Salix alba (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback
Dunc, you apparently used the anti-vandalism "rollback" function (available only to admins) in a content dispute at Creationism. 

If you actually typed in the text of the edit summary yourself, I apologize and take this back, but it looks precisely like the text generated when the tool is used.

Would you like to discuss the reasons for your edit? --Uncle Ed 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I didn't see your reasons anywhere. Why are you edit warring? (Surely not in the hopes that I'll violate 3RR so you can get my account blocked. That wouldn't be nice.) --Uncle Ed 21:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) You did it again today on the category tags (e.g, here). Don't you ever give reasons when you revert something? --Uncle Ed 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) *Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.

Self-promotion
Dunc sez to me

Your persistant desire to cite yourself is worrying, as it constitutes self-promotion. Self-promotion is heavily frowned upon because it is a tactic used by all sorts of overly self-important net kooks.

So here is the rule: If you want to make a change that in any way might be interpreted as self-promotion, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article first. If your edit is valid, someone else will do it for you. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 15:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I say back to Dunc


 * Pot-kettle. In view of your own uncountable rule violations and previous censoring (detailed above),  you have a lot of nerve accusing anyone else of a rule violation.   Worse,  you don't seem to have learned a thing from the experience of being censored.  Maybe a concerted campaign involving the numerous people you have messed over and your myriad rule violations will finally force a solution.   Were you not a sysop,  you would have been tossed long ago.  Wikipedia is tolerant,  but not that tolerant.


 * As for "self-promotion":  Again,  you cite the rule wrongly.  No original research says


 * "Expert editors: "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is  unverifiable. 'If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can  cite that source while writing in the  third person and complying with our  NPOV policy.' They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."  Pproctor 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Locomotives of the Great Western Railway
Hi Duncharris - see my note on the talk page: any further info? Peter Shearan 16:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting all my posts-- There are procedures to be followed
Lay off my postings. This is flat-out vandalism. We have already discussed the fact that an expert can refer to his oun work in reputable publications, etc. A rule which you then attempted to change. Other issues aside, reverts like this are supposed to be discussed on the talk page, as you have been reminded in your last reprimand. Evidently, you think the dispute resolution process is some sort of joke. Pproctor 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Did you read them? You're mistaken. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus I have no idea how the standard was created and I had no input into it. I simply noticed that many prominent pages of initialed people (i.e. "C. S. Lewis" or "H. G. Wells") include the spaces, and I saw what was written on the above link. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion on spaces There was a discsussion here, but it went nowhere. I'll be happy to post it again, but since the majority of well-written articles edited by several users have been created at or moved to "X. Y. Lastname," and since there is a standard that tells me this is the right way to do it, that's what I'm sticking with, until I have some compelling reason to do otherwise. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT I'm not sure that I'm disrupting Wikipedia by moving a bunch of poorly-named articles that have very few links and fixing my own double redirects. Also, there is already a standard that supports my moves. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus So you want me to get consensus for a rule that already exists? Should I wait and get consensus for other rules, too? That makes no sense. What happened to WP:BOLD? No doubt I've made some mistakes, but they're few and far between, and I'm reviewing my contributions to see if there's anything I've overlooked. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a democracy; some things are already rules, guidelines, conventions, etc. and you don't need others to be on board to do them (e.g. I didn't get consensus before I made my userpage, or before I wrote this comment on your talk.) As I said, the vast majority of articles are already in this format, the vast majority (all?) of the well-written ones are already in this format, and there is already a rule that supports what I'm saying. All you've done is tell me to stop, without providing any compelling reasons, and you claimed there wasn't a convention when there was one. So, why should I stop moving them? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving and consensus As I said before, I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, the standard is applied in a good 80-90% of articles already, all good articles, and there is already a convention to support what I'm doing. There was an opportunity for discussion that went nowhere for several months. It could hardly be more clear to me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering? I'm actually doing none of the following:
 * Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy.
 * Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.
 * Hiding behind misinterpretations or technicalities of policy to justify inappropriate edits.
 * If you're implying that I'm doing the second, I'd like to know how. If anything, it seems you're demanding consensus on an issue where it's inapporpriate: the consensus is already to name these articles as I've named them, since the vast majority of articles have those names already; silence means approval. When the issue was raised so long ago, no one seemed to care enough to discuss it, so there's no consensus to be built. The one thing that's not acceptable is having articles randomly named one way or another. That's to say nothing of the fact that some of these moves are non-controversial anyway (e.g. "H.-Jürgen Kluge" to "H. Jürgen Kluge.") Again, I've got some concrete reasons to do what I'm doing, and you're providing no actual compelling reasons for me to not do so. See P. G. Wodehouse, H. P. Lovecraft, E. E. Cummings, etc., and you'll see my evidence. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Afraid? I'm not afraid of anything - you're causing a stir over nothing, and throwing about irrelevant accusations (WP:POINT and Wikilawyering) that clearly don't apply. When I call you on one argument, you shift to another since you apparently have no good reason for the former. I have no idea why you're so invested in articles being at inappropriate names. I'm moving them because I want Wikipedia to be better - more professional, more uniform. Why would you want it to be inconsistent? Bearing in mind all the following: there already is a standard; I'm not disrupting Wikipedia; I'm fixing my own double redirects by hand; I'm making the articles more uniform; no one else seems interested in discussion, as they left it on the table months ago; the vast majority of articles are already named this way; all well-written and most-edited articles are named this way; and you've offered me no compelling reason to not do this, I'm going to continue. If you want to discuss it further, go for it, but I'm going to be more receptive if you start providing me some reasons why I shouldn't do something (instead of a lack of a reason to do it; I already have several reasons to do it), and if you stop making allegations that I'm breaking some rules when I'm not. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you want from me? Why do you keep on writing the same thing on my talk page? What's the point? By the way, have you even looked at my contributions? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cute I gave you my reason, so saying that I'm moving without one is simply a lie. I'm not violating WP:POINT, I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, as I'm fixing my double redirects, I am obeying the naming convention, and your note on the board got no real interest, except vague support of my and your positions from different editors. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on ANI
Hi. Just responding to your coments on the Administrators Noticeboard. It appears to be that naming conventions do agree with his page moves, and he appears to be fixing redirects and accepting input when he is mistaken (for example C.C. Chapman. Is there more to this dispute that I am missing? Thanks. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not create drafts in the main namespace
I didn't create the page, but in any case, thank you for pointing out that guideline. Note, however, that it is a guideline and not policy. That subpage was created to deal with an article dispute. I have no problems with moving it to a subpage of the talk page, but I feel that if you're going to make a terse statement telling me what to do (or in this case, what not to do) because I violated policy, I wanted to point out that (a) I didn't create the page, and (b) it's not a policy violation, since there was no policy being violated. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Well, even if you don't accept it, be aware that (although you're grumpy at times) you do a lot more good than harm, and know that we all appreciate having you around here! Happy editing, HawkerTyphoon 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary Progress
Hi Duncharris. I see you tagged this page as containing unverified claims or original research. Could you please indicate on Talk:Evolutionary progress which claims require citations? Pdturney 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Missed Reply
Hi Dunc, I think you may have missed seeing my replies to your points. See above, in the infobox discussion. And see also on the Haldane and Fisher pages the various comments. I am looking forward to your responses in all cases. Best regards, bunix 08:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dembski
Hi Duncharris,

Look, I'm done for the day, so you can have your way with the article. But please don't revert the purely editorial edits I made to the introduction. I don't think you should be reverting my edits to the Peer Review without discussion, but I doubt there's any stopping you. A quick read of the Code of Conduct might help.

I've discussed my position on the two questionable cites at length, so it's hardly vandalism.

Cheers, and let's not let this get out of hand.--CJGB (Chris) 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

VANDALIZE?? lol...
I'm tagging them for CREATIONISTS as they've been proven creationists ¬¬ Just think about it ;-)Arturo #7 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting without giving a reason
Dunc, you have a habit of reverting without comment at Intelligent Design and related pages. This is a bad habit, particularly when you use the admin-only rollback function.
 * It gives the impression that what you reverted was "simple vandalism", when it's actually only a disagreement over content.
 * It's a use of admin power to gain advantage in a dispute between editors (you and the other person).
 * You do it to win an edit war.
 * It deters other people from contributing to the article.

I've asked you before to stop this, but you made no reply. I did notice that once or twice after being admonished, you made a terse comment instead of using rollback, but this was not enough and did not last.

The last time you did this, it resulted in a newbie being blocked for 3RR. Why didn't you coach him, instead of treating him like a vandal?

I'm going to ask other Wikipedians for their comments about this matter. --Uncle Ed 13:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What, where? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Rollbacks to William Dembski

 * 19:42, 30 August 2006 Reverted edits by CJGB (talk) to last version by Duncharris
 * 18:35, 30 August 2006 Reverted edits by CJGB (talk) to last version by Guettarda


 * Oh yeah, that - he was removing a source for no reason; see the talk page where there was appropriate discussion. In the end he ended up violating the 7RR, despite being warned. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good catch, then. I would only have written rv, removing a source for no reason for the edit comment. I'm not disputing the block; the guy needs to slow down. --Uncle Ed 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Database Structures
Hi Dunc, Thank you for your message on my talk page. As I said before, I do not understand your comments. And I am still looking forward to your explanation why it is "complicated" compared to (say) the boxes at and. This would help me to understand. I would also like to be pointed to a wiki policy page that discusses database structures. If there isn't one, might be worth starting one. I do appreciate your time & comments. Best regards, bunix 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mccready's unblock
Hello Dunc, I noticed that you unblocked Mccready. From the reason you gave in your unblock statement I think you have been misinformed by Mccready about the actual circumstances of my block. I think it is important that we set the record straight. I'm sure that he will use your unblock statement in the future to try and disqualify me from doing admin actions if it meets his need.

True facts: On 08/27 Mccready emailed me and asked me to review Friday's block. I did and ended his 7 day block early, after he was blocked for about 2 days.

After the unblock he started editing and he made provocative statements; one on his talk page where he calls the other editors “mealy mouthed trolls” and the other comment in an edit summary “(Dear POV Pushers (to borrow Administrator Friday's phrase) don't remove relevant well sourced material without discussion. Other editors, please defend this useful balance to chiro POV.)” He also engaged in the same typed of poor collaborative editing that cause Friday to block him. I reblocked him, giving him back the 5 days I took away.

Unfortunately instead of taking responsibility for past mistakes and promising to engage in collaborative editing, Mccready wikilawyered his way out of the situation by falsely claiming that I should not block him because I have a grudge against him. Mccready is clearly misstating the facts. During his last block (wikistalking SlimVirgin) and Friday's recent block, he contacted me and asked me to investigate and unblock him. Seems like pure wikilawyering to claim after his unblocked and reblock that I have a grudge and shouldn't block.

In May Mccready emailed and asked that I mend fences with him by swallowing hard and unblocking him. I found the comment odd since I had limited contact with him except his oppose vote on my RFA. I discussed it with Mccready at the time. It was on Jim Butler's talk page that Mccready noted me reminding Jim62sch about this odd comment. Hardly evidence of a grudge. It is evidence of the odd way that Mccready sees situations.

If you want more detail I can provide more diffs. If you want a second opinion, might try JoshuaZ, FeloniousMonk, Jim62sch, KillerChihuahua, JzG, or Jayjg as they are familiar with his past wikilawyering and misstatements. FloNight 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, Eugenics categories
Hi. Could you comment on your reversal at Talk:Eugenics? (That seems to be the proper talk page to take this up.). Best, Arbor 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on your view? I frankly don't understand the second sentence (I think there is a double negation that shouldn't be there), and I fail to see where you address the subcaterogization question at all. Arbor 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to train companies' pages
Hello!

I am new to Wikipedia.

I am accidentally spamming with some new links I have put up on the various UK railway sites.

I should explian how we work.

We are well known to all these railway companies. We do not get commission from any of them (except a voluntary arrangement with one), rather we add services for which we charge the client.

We are like an air charter company; we do not dilute the supplier's revenues or steal their clients, but simply add to them.

Train charter is unknown to about 99% of the public, and so these are information sources as well as obviously commercial links.

Does all this change anything, or should we remove all the links to date?

Trolling??
What's this?


 * Just out of interest, do I count as a pro-quackery troll? Or Fyslee? I think the chiropractic Talk page deserves very serious attention from the community, not as an example of pro-quackery trolling, but as an outstanding example of conscientious collaborative editing according to WP principles, and incidentally that offers several examples of how disruptive editors can be "brought into the fold" by relentless civility and patience. I would like you to look at it; it's an article that I think is approaching FA class. I am not anonymous, so feel free to look me up. Gleng 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Rahn240.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Rahn240.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. (I do like the image, but that's beside the point). Storkk 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion
...at Wikipedia talk:No original research. We are discussing the section you reinstated, and your input would be greatly welcome. Thank you in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If, as your edit summary says, you're confused, then you should seek clarification on the discussion page before performing any kind of edit. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't contribute constructively to the discussion, your edit will certainly not stick, and if you make it repeatedly, you'll be blocked for edit warring, whether or not you violate 3RR. What do you want, out of this situation? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wtf is this? I do not like your tone.  I have made 1 change, no more.  There is ongoing discussion as to the primary sources thing, so your aggressive tone seems bad.  I have not been edit warring. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to come across so brusque, I was under the impression you knew that there was ongoing discussion about the Expert editors/Citing onself section as well. I figured you knew that, because your name came up in in, recently.  Only a week ago, you were participating in it.  I'm surprised if you think there's a clear consensus version of that section.  If I made unwarranted assumptions, I apologize, but I stand by my statement above that, if you're "confused", you have no business making the same edit you've made it the past, that has been taken out and reinserted repeatedly, leading to two page protections.  If you're "confused" then why aren't you asking questions on the talk page, in order to relieve your confusion? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was making a different edit to what I did. Hence the confusion. I don't care much for the primary sources argument. I accept your apology. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elsberry 3435 278h 215w.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Elsberry 3435 278h 215w.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Hi, I saw that you disliked Template:Infobox Scientist, I think its terrible and have nominated it for deletion.--Peta 04:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated edits
I am not interested in receiving yet another bogus warning message from you, so don't bother.

Hrvåtski article
Hi, I noticed you changed Hrvåtski on 2004-05-23T05:53:36 (yes, a long time ago) from "Hrvatski" to "Hrvåtski". Do you recall your source for this spelling, because he almost always spells his Hrvatski alias as "Hrvatski". I'm just concerned that Wikipedia is spreading misinformation about the actual spelling of his name. Thanks. +mwtoews 17:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

PZ Myers
I've indicated why "pseudo-science" is POV and unneccessary on the talk page. Why don't you at least explain yourself? On the Pinkowski matter, the details are clearly not appropriate to Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced- though I would welcome contrary reasoning. Gabrielthursday 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're awfully willing to assume the worst of me. I'm aware of the principles of NPOV, and the specific policy you point to doesn't address the specific situation. I won't restate my arguments here, as they are properly on the relevant talk page. Gabrielthursday 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For someone so rightly insistent on adherence to WP:NPOV (though in this case, imho, misapplied), I find it a little odd you should be so cavalier about WP:CIV and WP:NPA Gabrielthursday 10:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (Also posted to my talk page)

Nomination For Delisting - IronInRocksMakeRiverRed
Just writing to tell you that Image:IronInRocksMakeRiverRed.jpg (an image you nominated) has been nominated for Delisting from Featured Picture. You can defend it over at Featured Picture Candidates. Nauticashades 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Erasmus Alvey Darwin
Thanks. I realised the link I gace was wrong (if the quote was right) - but did not know what to do about it - I'm impressed that you picked it up so quickly and corrected it! Johnbibby 12:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

John Templeton Foundation
Hey Duncharris -- just got a note re: the continual deletions on the JTF page; Geoff.scholl is an employee at JTF and the VP of communications for JTF has told him to delete the information (see my talk page.) I'm trying to explain how things work on wikipedia, but your assistance would be valuable. Sdedeo (tips) 14:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir David Weatherall Wiki
Cheers for pointing that out Dunc - it's not a mistake I tend to make, but I have been doing a lot of repetitive entries involving Lords and Ladies etc who, of course, tend to be abbreviated to their surnames, so I'm sure the Wiki Community will forgive me for my temporary oversight (which you kindly rectified - cheers) :-P BHA 16:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Trescothick
Hello Duncharris,

A courtesy note to let you know why I reverted your edit to Marcus Trescothick again. WP:LIVING is absolutely clear that any unsourced information about a living person which could be construed as negative must be removed immediately without discussion.

Your edit could be reinstated if it was properly sourced, although I'm still a bit uncomfortable about it. It's easy for the press to make wild speculations not based on any genuine knowledge. But it's probably OK if we make it clear which was speculation and which was the official account.

Yours,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Arseblog
I understand why the old entry was deleted. It was overblown and full of in jokes.

However, Arseblog does have merit. It is amongst the very top UK blogs in terms of traffic and readership as detailed in the link provided in the entry.

Plenty of other blogs and bloggers without the same exposure, readership and influence are included on Wikipedia without deletion.

Maybe it's because it's a sports blog and they're not as 'in' as tech/culture blogs.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this and your consideration for reinstatement.

RVP11

Update: Do you reply to these?

LUElinks Exists!
I was just looking for a luelinks page and I found a deleted and protected page that says "luelinks does not exist" and the trail leads here, to you. I'm just wondering why wikipedia doesn't have a LUElinks page...


 * See Articles_for_deletion/LUElinks. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That "vote" is ridiculous, barely anyone states reasons for support. Also it doesn't say why the page doesn't exist (apparently) any longer.


 * No-one states reasons for support, beause the onyl people who supported it were newly created accounts. The page was deleted because of the guidelines at WP:WEB and WP:SPAM, as well as a few others at WP:NOTABILITY. to be honest, any article on this would just be an advert for it. I wholeheartedly endorse its deletion for one - Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm. HawkerTyphoon 17:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Hi Dunc

You reverted a small correction I made (anonymously) to the presidential list: could you undo your reversion, please, because the original is wrong. The table is derived largely from the second reference book mentioned, and the table in that book is wrong. There are, in fact, three fairly distinguished "Michael Neales" in IMechE membership, all much of an age, and the book confused them (as did the IMechE at the time the book was written). I know this because I wrote the book and the real ex-pres Mike Neale complained! (I don't think there are other any other glaring mistakes in the book, by the way, though parts of it betray the fact that I wrote it in a dreadful hurry.) I try not to edit the IMechE article as such, but I keep an eye on it in case wrong information gets in. Thanks. Johnlp 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnlp 21:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)