User talk:Duncharris/archive3

At page load, it was -- T in UTC (see W3C Date and Time Formats)

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

Archives

 * One
 * Two

test
wibble

Darwins and Wedgwoods
Thanks, Duncharris. I really only know what I read in a couple Darwin biographies but I might be able to fill in a few more details. Opus33 15:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

what do you think is copyrighted dunc?
I am compiling this material from personal knowledge
 * Dunc, it doesn't appear that there is any verbatim (or even paraphrased) text in the initial revision to DNA repair in the link you posted:


 * http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046%2Fj.1432-1327.2000.01266.x or
 * http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01266.x/full/


 * I did a Google search on a few of the sentences, and couldn't find the posted text in the initial revision of DNA repair anywhere. Is it possible that you didn't quote to search on the phrase and came up with a link that simply contained all of the words by chance? I'm going to revert the page to the original contribution unless you find evidence to the contrary.  --Lexor|Talk 12:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

DNA damage
DNA damage can be subdivided into endogenous processes such as oxidation from metabolic byproducts and processes of environmental origin such as ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, certain plant toxins and man-made mutagenic chemicals. DNA damage due to normal metabolic processes inside the cell occur in a frequency that has been estimated to be between 50,000 to 500,000 lesions per cell per day. Endogenous damage affects the primary rather than secondary structure of the double helix and can be subdivided into three classes: oxidation of bases [e.g. 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine (8-oxoG)] and generation of strand interruptions from reactive oxygens species, methylation of bases such as formation of 7-methylguanine and hydrolysis of bases such as depurination and depyrimidination.

Consequences of DNA damage
DNA damage cannot be tolerated in mammalian cells as it interferes with transcription of genes and cell replication ultimately resulting in cell senescence, apoptosis or carcinogenesis. The accumulation of normal DNA damage has been implicated with the process of aging.

Mechanisms of DNA repair
DNA repair processes are occurring constantly to compensate for the enormous number of lesions that normally occur. The DNA repair process relies on one strand remaining intact so that a replacement of damaged information can be made by the intact information of the redundant copy. There are numerous mechanisms by which DNA repair can take place. These include base excision repair (BER) where the damaged bases such as those due to oxidation are removed and replaced, nucleotide excision repair (NER) which has evolved to repair damage by UV light.

How humans are animals
Why did you delete the "how humans are animals" segment from the human page. You know humans are actually animals. Read the scientific classification of a human being and look up animal in the dictionary to find out. If you have any questions or comments send them to my talk page. Heegoop, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC).

test message
Hi. The message only goes on the users' talk page. You don't need to put it on the article you wish deleted. Only needs to be placed on the article. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tombeau
Thanks for the suggestion, Duncharris. Looks like Antandrus is lightning quick, and did a fine job beefing up the article while I was still just getting into gear! Cheers, Opus33 15:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Basically, 172 is trying to create a little cabal; and Plato is being attacked because of his association with me (I am someone who disagrees with 172). Lirath Q. Pynnor

Cardiff Arms Park/Millennium Stadium
Hey, what's with the move? They're two completely different stadiums - one just happens to have been built on the location where the other one used to be. And if there's only to be one article, it should surely be called Millennium Stadium as that's the name it goes by now. --ALargeElk | Talk 13:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Phone Sex
Return of the self promotion at phone sex - Maybe revert it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Phone_sex&diff=0&oldid=4940202

(by 00:35, 1 Aug 2004 User:Polymorp)

Robert Picton
Ack, maybe Robert Picton isn't speedy-delete material (given that the serial killer was Robert Pickton and the pre-existing article was better). What'd the general do?DS 22:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald redirects
Why did you redirect the columnists to the Sydney Morning Herald? I've reverted these changes and made their entries stubs. As it stood, the columnists were each linked to in the SMH article itself, hence a self-referencing link was created!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:16, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Substubs
I replied to the fact that you (inappropriately) moved my post here. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 18:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172
I just chose to ignore 172's VFDing my Red Faction, because if I made fuss over it, it would make me look bad. --Plato 22:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

substubs (again)
I once again replied to the fact that you inappropriately rearranged the entire talk page here. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 18:26, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration
I think going straight to the ArbComm is a bit drastic, although I do think Mr. Storm needs a whack with variously the LART, cluestick, and the good ol' mallet of manners. But I still chipped in my two cents. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

substubs arbitration
Duncharris, you are the one at fault here. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 02:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * whatever Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 15:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I find your response, "whatever," extremely rude. I expected more maturity from someone who is old enough to drink. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 16:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been old enough to drink for three years, and have been doing so for longer than that. Are you jealous? Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 16:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You must be from England then. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 18:09, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not mad, but I am ticked off at you. Nor do I wish to intimidate you, and please do not put words in my mouth.


 * Are you accusing me of starting rambling flame wars? Because that is not what I do. There is already an organized structure in place - the voting sections.


 * You are correct about one thing - sensible posts do carry more weight than flames. However, you are mistaken - newbie users can edit pages with just as much authority as experienced ones. Furthermore, I am not a newbie - I have done all the things that you have listed. I know how to gain good impressions from people, and I know what is required to become a sysop: respect. So far, you have gained zero respect from me. And I take great offense to you saying that I want to become "emperor of Wikipedia".


 * So far, I believe that I have acted in a much more courteous, respectful, and Wikipedian manner than you have, and I do not appreciate you talking down to me, like I am some idiotic newbie, when all proof shows otherwise. Get off your high horse. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 18:01, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Throwing your rattle out of your pram is going to impress nobody. I just tried to reason with you, but you continue with all the subtlety and tact of a fairy elephant. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 18:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

mess dress photo
photo is mine - release added - thanks

Removing Internet Explorer
Hi. You just merged the content on Removing Internet Explorer into Internet Explorer. I am not going to take a position on whether it should or should not be there (I am already involved, having edited it to its current state), but were you aware that it had just been removed from Internet Explorer by User:Pcb21? - Mark 12:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. Thanks for restoring it, anyway. I sway towards thinking it should be left in anyway. - Mark 13:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Steven Sills Do not delete
Do not Delete: An American Papyrus is in a hundred libraries according to Worldcat OCLC. One can obviously tell that he is writing literature. Project Gutenberg does not publish every Tom, Dick, and Harry. As I understand it one would need to be deceased and a famous literary writer or, rarely, that modern authors are showcased. Furthermore, I think the University of Pennsylvania's Online Books is rather fastidious about what they choose to put on the net. Anyhow, this is my opinion User:168.120.27.112 13:39, 6 Aug 2004


 * You should special:userlogin and make your case on Votes for deletion, not here, though nice to meet you and all that. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 14:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Please see disambiguation. For example, Columbia, Tennessee clearly indicates that the city is in Tennessee and not Pennsylvania. Therefore, adding :For other uses see Columbia on top is entirely unecessary. There is no room for confusion. --Jiang 10:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * oh well, I've done it now. There's no harm in it. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 10:42, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. &#8212;No-One Jones 12:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Substubs (still)
Since you participated in the discussion on this subject, could you express your opinion on what to do with the substub template at Template talk:Substub? Thanks. --Michael Snow 21:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fumoto no iro
I have (finally) commented on "Fumoto no iro" at this page: Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Fumoto no iro. I hope it helps, and if there is anything more I can do, please let me know. Tomos 11:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sympson the Joiner
--Jerzy(t) 04:25, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
 * 1) Sympson the Joiner survived VfD with two Del votes (including the nomination to VfD), three explicit Keep votes, and two arguable implicit Keeps (via mentions of Cleanup).
 * 2) In accord with severalWP:CU mentions, it
 * 3) went on,
 * 4) got a one-word M(inor) edit after 18 minutes, and
 * 5) was kicked off by one editor after 14 hours, with summary "nothing more is likely to turn up".
 * 6) Your comment at Talk:Sympson the Joiner would assist me in determining what next.

Calayan Rail
The agreed convention on Wikipedia is that bird species are fully capitalised, and every one of the 1500 plus articles follows that convention. jimfbleak 05:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Just because some bird-brained twit couldn't write properly doesn't mean that we should vandalise properly capitalised articles into the wrong namespace! As it is now, we have 1501 articles Badly Capitalised.  Honestly, you went to the trouble of moving the page back, any other time would be considered vandalism.  You are being silly.  We need to get a bot on the job. Maybe its not as silly as Pokemon, but it's still silly. I won't do it again, I try to help and what happens? Bloody ornithologists. grrrr! :) Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Rest assured it's not just birds, it's policy for all animal species. Pcb21| Pete 19:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Committee of correspondence
I responded to your move suggestion on the article's talk page. As there were numerous such committees and the article describes them all, the term is properly lower-cased as a generic label, rather than capitalized as if it were in reference to a specific one. Postdlf 21:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Atheism precludes spirituality== ==

Atheism precludes spirituality
Sam Spade said a person cannot be both spiritual and atheist (i.e., atheism precludes spirituality). Dunc Harris said that words used to describe Spirituality are incomprehensible gobledegook. However, in order to be consistent with these views, shouldn’t the entire section on “atheist religious organizations” in the Atheist article be deleted? From your points of view such wording is unintelligible. I submit to you both that you argue that atheism precludes spirituality, and if you are successful then we can delete that section of the Atheist article that mentions “atheist religious organizations.” Aliman 12:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VfD fixing
I managed to fix the contents of VfD, but someone's edits keep preventing me from saving it. RAHOWA is already on the page once. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 21:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Veronika Zemanova in de Wikipedia
Hi Duncan

You posted a request for the deletion of the Veronika Zemanova article in the German WP. Unfortunately, you omitted to give any reasons (neither did you put a warning in the article). If you put a short summary of why you think the article should be deleted on my discussion page, I’d be happy to translate and post it.

(I might add, however, that I do not so far see a reason to delete the article.)

--217.88.185.237 10:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What is a "kidi wiki"? I'm unfamiliar with the term. As for topless photos, they may or may not be viewed as inappropriate in the German WP - few people are so uptight about issues like that as the Americans are. (Which does not excuse copyright violations, of course.) --Skriptor 12:49, 25. Aug 2004 (CEST)

English/British categorisation
Hi, I notice you've been moving people from English xxx to British xxx categories. Why? If you look at Category:British sportspeople, for example, there are separate subcategories for the nations within Britain. There is a good reason to keep this distinction, especially for sportspeople, since in many sports the nations compete separately: football and Commonwealth Games in particular. I appreciate it's not always easy to identify the particular nation an individual represents (where does Greg Rusedski go?) but coalescing English/Welsh/Scottish into British is information loss -- Avaragado 17:36, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Nationalist POV? Sorry, I don't understand. How does recording a person's nationality, one under which they compete, count as POV? There's information loss as I can no longer easily locate a list of Welsh athletes, for example. Every time you coalesce multiple categories you take knowledge out of the category system: the information that distinguished the two categories in the first place. It would be trivial to create a "British athletes" category - just make it the supercategory of the English/Welsh/Scottish athletes categories. -- Avaragado 19:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The athletes already were in the appropriate countries before you changed them! As I said: Category:British athletes could trivially be made a supercategory of Category:English athletes, Category:Welsh athletes and Category:Scottish athletes while retaining the individual nationalities. I still don't understand why listing Scottish athletes is POV, since they compete as such in an international event. Is Category:Scottish cities also POV? -- Avaragado 19:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You think that Category:British sportspeople means sportspeople who complete for Britain. From looking at the supercategories of that category, I think it means sportspeople who are British. However, that's by the by. Let's use an example. Colin Jackson was in Category:Welsh athletes; he's Welsh, he's an athlete, there you go. Category:Welsh athletes is in Category:Welsh sportspeople (athletes are sportspeople) and in Category:Athletes (Welsh athletes are athletes). To create Category:British athletes, just make it another supercategory of Category:Welsh athletes (Welsh athletes are then classed as British athletes). Hence Jackson becomes a member of British athletes by implication. You wouldn't put him in both categories: just the most specific one. That's the way categories are supposed to work. Categories aren't lists. You don't put everyone on one list, you categorise them so that you can then aggregate the categories in various interesting ways. If I want to find all Welsh people, I should be able to look at Category:Welsh people and all its subcategories. I can no longer find Colin Jackson that way, because you have taken knowledge out of the category system. Please rethink this. -- Avaragado 20:22, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:Dartmouth-vfd
It might interest you that I created a special template for Dartmouth: votes for deletion. It's called "dartmouth-vfd". -- Allyunion 22:55, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, let's see: Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 23:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)  This page has been listed on Votes for deletion due to the fact it is non-notable Dartmouth related article that is a substub. This article should be merged with an approprate Dartmouth list of organizations or on the Dartmouth entry itself.

Please see its entry on that page for additional justifications and discussion. If you don't want the page deleted, please read the deletion guidelines and vote against its deletion there. Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the question is being considered. However, you are welcome to make improvements to it. Category:Pages on votes for deletion Category:Dartmouth Pages on votes for deletion

I have to say that your User Page is way cool! I like it. I've just discovered Wikipedia recently, so mine is lame, but hopefully that will change.

Thanks, because your comment about "incomprehensible" got me on a roll. I'm a "spiritual agnostic almost atheist" who has a rich spiritual life. I'm more into science than anything else, but, as you'll see below, science melds into spirituality once you get past the big bang, etc., because "spirituality" is the only word that we have that effectively explains some experience. Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.

This is on Talk:spirituality.

Is there a problem with "Spirituality" being "incomprehensible"?
User:duncharris said: "Although an atheist may well be able to follow Subud, I have never heard of [t]he term, and it appears to be religious/spiritual, and uses the same incomprehensible gobledegook [sic]."

Duncharris’ sentence is a bit ambiguous, but I'll assume that he is saying that words used to describe spiritual matters are incomprehensible. Indeed, they may be! But, most worthwhile endeavors are difficult or impossible to comprehend:

The singularity (of the Big Bang) is incomprehensible because the curvature of spacetime was infinite, so physical law and time as we know it did not exist; Infinity is incomprehensible, a fortiori different types of infinities are incomprehensible; Infinity can be demonstrated in a proof, but it still makes no sense to our understanding; The proof that the number of natural numbers is equal to the number of EVEN natural numbers is incomprehensible. Again, we can demonstrate the proof but it’s not satisfying to the understanding; Time dilation, many ramifications of E=mc(2), some behavior of muons, and the notion of electrons “traveling around” a nucleus (related to Heisenberg uncertainty)--it’s all incomprehensible. It is possible for a “tear” to open up in our space time in the vicinity of our Local Group, and “another” Big Bang would happen—an entirely different universe (likely with different physical laws) would spread destroying spacetime as it goes (not “replacing” space, but actually destroying spacetime itself). This means another dimension would “open up” within our dimension, at least temporarily. Of course, by “temporarily” is meant thousands of years, until our spacetime and everything associated with it was destroyed when the explosion reached us. Currently physics says that communication with this new universe would be “impossible” but most of quantum theory is “impossible” from Aristotelian/Newtonian principles). "Non-locality" is currently incomprehensible (classical physics assumes change/effect only by direct physical contact, yet non-locality denies this stricture).  Varying c (speed of light)(or VSL theory) makes little sense in terms of relativity theory.  Matter is mostly space rather than “solid” as common sense would have it.  Chaos theory, inflationary theory, the Lambda problem, Inflation’s so-called solution to the Lambda problem, Bohm’s implicate order, quantum states “jumping” up to the atomic level (this has already been used to explain behavior in some bacteria), etc., etc.,—all this stuff makes little sense to our understanding. Yet it is either currently actual, or has strong theoretical grounds. While humanity currently has the most amazing bank of knowledge in human history, it’s also true that “incomprehensibility” is a cornerstone of the universe, and given the scope of Epistemology it will remain so.

Regarding Spirituality, some people have access to more subtle forms of physical energy, but it’s only physical energy nonetheless—it’s not some mysterious “supernatural mystic vision.” Some people claim it’s that out of ignorance. But that doesn’t mean that some persons cannot sense outside normal boundaries. I don’t want to get too reductionist, but for sake of explanation I’ll say that what we now call spiritual experience will someday be explained. Maybe not completely explained, but explained enough to give it credence to most thinking people (many accepted theories in physics are only partly explained—theories have “lives,”—big bang cosmology, inflation, etc.). Maybe spiritual experience is a bleed-over from other (physical) dimensions, or from an implicate order, or maybe it’s direct prehension from quantum states (although it’s true that quantum theory currently says that useful information can’t travel non-locally). Or, spiritual experience may be enhanced sense perception. (That is, the five senses don’t open the world to us, rather they may cut us off from reality. Those with enhanced senses would have been quickly selected out of the population by evolution—how can you hunt and gather with continual influxes of irrelevant data coming into your consciousness, even if that data is actual states of affairs in the world? Some of that ability, or vestiges of it, was retained, however, because some people have the ability that animals do, to sense barometric pressure, etc.). Our knowledge of human sense perception and neurology, which is bound up with the issue of “spirituality,” is in it’s infancy.

Energy and matter are the same thing but just in a different states. Everything may be reduced to energy or experience (“experience” as used here is not to be confused with “consciousness,” as the latter is something very different). At the quantum level there is a continual exchange of energy—photonic energy. On some level every interaction of one object with another object is “recorded.” Interaction between objects leaves some kind of energy-impression (call it “data”), either locally or non-locally or both, in one or both affected objects. True, we can only access a fraction of that data in the 21st century (e.g., the object's color, a mark left on it from a collision with another object in the past, evidence that it has sat in the sun or weather for years, radioactive properties, etc.), but given enough time and development we’ll be able to prehend or access much more of this data. Some people claim to have a more developed intuitive sense and claim that they can access it, but they really cannot. In other words, yes, there are charlatans in the world. But, other people claim they are able to access this energy, and they are correct. Energy may be sensed by human beings—human beings may receive data and if they have trouble classifying this data in common or worldly terms, then they resort to a “spiritual” explanation. Spirituality may be defined as real experience that doesn’t fit into neat and easy categories.

The universe is a complex place. I wish the universe were nice and neat—well-defined, easily, clearly, and completely referenced. I wish I could close my mind to what we’re calling “spiritual” today, and relegate it all “gobbledygook.” Tossing a label on something and denying it wholesale is the work of radicals (at both ends of the spectrum) and it’s the easy way out. (Of course, this doesn’t mean we accept everything either—astrology and many things “metaphysical,” in the non-academic sense, are probably best classified as nonsense, or at least as very dubious.) The radical Evolutionists will continue to fight the radical Creationists, and since they both only have a tiny picture of the whole, they’ll fight to no avail, and continue to close themselves off from the larger picture. The most difficult and treacherous path, but the most rewarding one, is to tread in the middle between the Creationists and the Evolutionists, taking ALL evidence seriously (i.e., if you’re going to be radical, then be a “radical” empiricist, and take all experience seriously, even “spiritual” experience). There’s plenty of room in (what we today call) “material science” for (what we today call) “spirituality.” It’s all the same: supernaturalism is nonsense—there’s only nature. The more of nature you study, the more open and synoptic you become. Socrates’ attitude (from the oracle) sums it up best, after all. User:Aliman


 * All swans are white, after all. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 11:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Swans?
Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean? Swans? Aliman 11:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * see Falsifiability Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 11:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, I'm quite familiar with Popper! You're making too many assumptions (probably about classical theism) so it's difficult to sort out what you're saying!  A hui ho! Aliman 12:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that if I modify my Talk Page that you'll ever get my response. So here it is:

DuncHarris said: "Atheism is essentially used in two ways, the first generally used in the Western World, is really a synonym for the results of rationalism (see also philosophy of science). However, there are religions such as Buddhism which do not have deities but have key concepts that are incompatible with rationalism. Subud seems to fall into this latter category. However, on their website they appear to use the word "God" as a synomym for "Universe", as a rather vague concept less well defined as Abrahamic monotheism but a deity nevertheless. My main problem with Subud is that it is obscure. With you having a perfectly legitimite interest in it, perhaps it might be worthwhile to wait until somebody more neutral writes about it. Atheism is a controversial issue (see talk:atheism), so we need to tread carefully. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 12:34, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Being a philosopher and sometimes theolgian (I study theology rather than practise it), and having been so for the better part of 20 years, and having been intimately involved in Subud for 19 years, I can assure you that persons who say that Subud necessarily has anything to do with God or Deity simply don't know what they're talking about. There is no Subud doctrine. No creed. No rules. It's a meditative-type "spiritual" (used loosely) exercise, and a person's experience of it is whatever they want to make of it. Climbing a dangerous mountain, like Mt. Everest, or doing some other dangerous experience, is not necessarily a spiritual or religious experience. If a religious person climbs it, however, they are likely to interpret it and explain it in religious terms. Then someone comes along, who doesn't know better, and reads it on the Internet, and concludes that mountain climbing is a spiritual endeavor. Well, yes, it may be. Someone can get "converted" to Christianity or some other religion by having a profound and dangerous experience climbing a mountain, but inherently speaking moutain climbing is not necessarily spiritual. I don't know, does that make sense? That's why I think that Subud can go on the Atheist page. Oh, I'm tired! I have to get up for work in three hours (it's 2am here). Aliman 12:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Palmone handhelds
I have moved over the the PalmOne discontinued handhelds page to the main PalmOne, Inc. page. I understand that I do not know everything about Wikipedia. Did you know I started the idea of using a color scheme for WikiProject Music genres? The idea really was originally mine, but has been improved by User: TUF-KAT.


 * cool. please remember to sign your posts. :) Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 23:29, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

sorry, corrected to english
Thanks for the heads up. I just replaced the bio to an english one.

new user, getting used to
Thank you for your message. I will not past copyrighted material in the future. I just discovered Wikipedia and am still learning the rules.

cheers,

Heptathlon
That's true modern pentathlon is not the same as the ancient pentathlon. I changed the link to point to the modern pentathlon because women were obviously not competing in the ancient pentathlon when the heptathlon was instituted. I think it's better for that link to point to what the heptathlon actually replaced. -- Ponder 14:27, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Kelly Holmes== ==

Thanks for your recent work on Kelly Holmes - much needed and timely. (I'll be thanking the others who have helped too). --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 17:41, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Dartmouth Review
You marked Dartmouth Review as having NPOV issues, but you haven't indicated on the discussion page what those issues might be. Obviously, there is no way I (or anyone) can set about addressing your unstated issues. Please indicate your issues in the talk page of that article. (Note that on NPOV dispute it is explicit that "If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article." -- Jmabel 00:09, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Cricket categories
Thanks for your comment on the categorisation of cricketers. Although I helped to implement it, it's not actually my categorisation, but was developed by dmmaus and others - see Category_talk:Cricket.

I see what you mean about a category being needed for English people who play bowls. However, given that (i) Category:English bowlers is already set up and populated by cricket players (and reflects the same categories that were set up for the other major cricket-playing nations), and (ii) (not denigrating bowls) I expect that the cricket category would have more entries than a bowls category, my preference would be for the cricket categorisation to stay the same and a bowls categorisation structure to be set up separately, say Category:English bowls players.

I'll copy the above (and your initial comment) to Category_talk:Cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

human
Where are you getting your info from? I fairly strongly understood that bonobos are more closely related to humans, and that hominids are great apes. (i'm not biting, btw, just curious) Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 15:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's uncontroversial that the evolutionary tree for hominids looks like this:

.--+.             |                           |     .+--.                |     |                   |                |     |            .--+-.          |     |            |            |          |   Homo   P. troglodytes P. paniscus   Gorilla


 * So neither of the two Pan species is more closely to related to humans than the other, but Pan is more closely related to humans than Gorilla. (Of course, measures of DNA similarity may favour one species, but that's a different story.)


 * "Great ape" is not a taxonomical term; I think it's more often used to mean "hominids, except for the branch leading to humans" as it is to mean "hominid" only. So I think it needs to be used carefully in a taxonomical context. Gdr 15:57, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought, but I thought that P. paniscus was slightly more closely related by the order of a small % base pairs. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 16:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that people usually mean "% of base pairs" when they say "related"! In my opinion, the story of DNA comparison among hominids is too complex and requires too much interpretation to be simplified to a claim that bonobos are more closely related to humans than common chimpanzees are. It needs its own section in the Hominidae article. My revised sentence is true for both the phylogenetic and sequence-similarity meaning of "related", so I think it can stand without any extra discussion. Gdr 16:18, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Nylon
This isn't airing in America. I would have known about it. I've heard of Rashida Jones, though. She used to be on Boston Public. Mike H 21:57, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Irwin Miller
As for Mr. Miller's likeness, I'd encourage you to see if you could obtain a photo. I'm not very proficient with the technical aspects of uploading and downloading files--on top of which I use a library computer and can't do some things--so I've left images to more capable hands. There's an image on the Courier-Journal obit I link to; none of the other obits I saw had one. Let me know if you have any success. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 21:49, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

jpg/bmp
I had a cust this morning with the same problem. we haven't findured out what it is yet but I told him to use Firefox which is really a better brouser anyway. Let me know on my talk it you actually figure out what caused it thoughCavebear42 19:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought that too, but this guy was on sp1 still.Cavebear42 19:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been having the same problem. If someone gives you a real answer, could you post it back to WP:VP for the rest of us? TNX. -- Jmabel 19:27, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's a Microsoft Knowledge Base Article on the problem (and it's apparent solution/workaround): Internet Explorer Does Not Save Graphics Files in the Proper Format. Some people have said it doesn't work, though. - 21:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee  (talk)