User talk:LeftCoastMan

No one has to drop any welcomes, hi's, or how to do stuff. I know my way around. See--> LeftCoastMan (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event
Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that I had been brave enough to translate the article into French at the beginning of the year. I actually did not went through getting a GA or FA label on the wp:fr side yet. As I see you are editing the article, I was wondering if you would be interested by my input and helping me out in understanding the overall structure of this quite long article (the fantastic feedback I got on wp:fr was that the summary of the article was much clearer than the article itself... French version actually removed from the talk page). --Anneyh (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My French is non-existent. Sorry.  LeftCoastMan (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No French needed, the problem I have is that I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject to clarify some points. Back in February, I had the following question on Acid rains that you may be able to answer. It deals with the section "Causes of extinctions", subsection "Impact event" :
 * First we're told acid rains were probably playing a minor role as frog survived. A bit further the article says that they destroyed plants and killed plankton, mollusks and others and later that since the impactor landed deeper than thought earlier, acid rains played a bigger role. I have the impression that this is just the outcome of the additional of recent research results and would be grateful if somebody would clarify this point. --Anneyh (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is also strange to my eyes is that the words "acid rains" are only in those two paragraphs. Thanks. --Anneyh (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following the article as closely as I should. It looks as though there has been a lot of editing since it became an FA, and there is a lot of inconsistency that needs to be cleared up.  As with a lot of articles an editor will put in information that meets their POV, never tying it to the rest of the article.  I'll do some cleaning up. LeftCoastMan (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

talkback

 * Like I care about a self absorbed editor. Meh.  LeftCoastMan (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mule deer
Thanks for catching and attempting to fix at least one of the messed up articles. I personally think the automatic taxoboxes are very difficult to try to edit, but I was told off when I suggested that, so don't feel too bad about it. Mule deer are great animals, thanks for editing. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I despise some of the arrogant editors around here. I was trying to fix the taxobox, which I've never used before, when another editor just flew in, called everyone essentially a jerk, and flew out with no explanation.  Apparently his shit doesn't stink.  The taxobox was broken for many edits in the history.  And yes, mule deer are great animals.  I never edit these kind of articles, but I was linked to it from Facebook.  Someone was using the article as "proof" of something.  As badly written and referenced as 99% of Wikipedia articles are, it's proof for nothing except certain over the top arrogant editors.  LeftCoastMan (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Creationism
Yo. Thanks for taking a moment to answer. (Understand that I am not a creationist!) It just suddenly struck me as strange that while it's not possible to prove astrology is right -- no one has accepted James Randi's $1,000,000 prize -- no US grammar school teacher would DARE teach that, for fear of being fired.

What I found doubly amusing, in a sense, is that out of 10,000s of Wiki edits I've made, several 100s of those in Discussion, that was the first comment I remember ever having had removed. I'm pretty sure I've made others that are equally reflective. But this one! Oh! I'm not allowed to comment. Lolol. And I do think there's reason to probe, when three editors (but not you) reacted so strongly, they weren't even willing to discuss it. Hats off to you, then, and have a great day. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Herpes zoster
Could you explain why you deleted encyclopedic content from herpes zoster (the "etymology" section)? JFW &#124; T@lk  12:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Poorly sourced, poorly written, and when does the etymology of the word matter in an article about a disease? If the author, who can't write, wants to write a dictionary, I believe there's a Wikipedia dictionary project.  LeftCoastMan (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite true, but we should at least attempt to explain the meaning of a word. You've done a fine job at improving it, thank you. With regards to your comment ("the author can't write", "crap section"), please be careful about people's feelings (I am not the author). JFW &#124; T@lk  19:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you're not the author, because you wouldn't write something like that. :)  As for other people's feelings?  If they can't write, someone should tell them now before they think they can go to medical school, because all they are qualified to do is sweep horse manure on Park Avenue. LeftCoastMan (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I sort of undeleted it. Still, etymology in a disease article.  Not sure what it brings to the table.  Let me re-read MEDMOS to see what it says about it.  I also sourced all of the comments in the section.  LeftCoastMan (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tone at Talk:Evolution
While I realize that taking part in discussions on this site, especially controversial ones, can make just about anyone calloused, please try to remember to assume good faith. Abruptly accusing people of pushing a POV (especially users who have been on the site for less than a week and didn't even attempt to put their opinion into the actual article) is not exactly constructive. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything and I usually wouldn't even bother with a message like this, but I'm currently involved in a project called WikiGuides that is trying to give new users a more positive initial experience instead of getting their heads bitten off, as they too often do. The user you were responding to is one of my assignments and I'm just trying to look out for him. I really think he was just trying to share what he thought the terms actually meant. Anyway, happy editing. -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, to clarify I didn't mean you when I said "getting their heads bitten off." All you did was respond in talk. I meant when people just delete their edits and then rant at them. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed my comments at the very top. I don't give a shit.  If he's a dumbfuck that thinks that creationism is real, then he really should be assigned to the denialist bin of the local mental institution.  In this world and the real world, either you understand science or you deny it.  He's a fucking xtian denialist.  Not much you can do with him/her/it.  I do wish you well, but don't come here trying to improve me, because I know my science, and can back up every point I make anywhere here with evidence.  If I don't, I stay away.  Frankly, I'll fix whatever articles meet my fancy.  Again, enjoy being the mentor, but I don't do well with admins with their pretentious attitudes because they're fat little unemployed fucks who get erections by pretending to be powerful here.  So, in other words, if you want to help someone, take it elsewhere, because I really really really really don't give a shit about hurting some creationists little feelings.  Fuck that shit.  LeftCoastMan (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Yeah, that's about what I figured. Only after I posted did I bother glancing at the rest of your talk page and it quickly becomes clear that you choose to be ass and have no intention of changing. It's actually rare to meet such an extreme case of a user being a complete cancer to the site, so congrats on that.
 * 2) I'm not an admin or anything close to it and I have no intentions of being one.
 * 3) It's pretty funny to read a quote from you like "Oh well, now I remember why I hate this place. Condescending editors." while you blatantly despise and condescend to pretty much every other editor on here. You don't seem exactly stupid, per ce, so I'm guessing you realize that this makes you a complete and utter hypocrite who has no room to rightfully complain about anyone else here.
 * At any rate, don't worry about me posting anymore on your talk page or watching for your response. I'm sure you weren't worried anyway. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading. I appreciate it.  You should review that bullshit policy about personal attacks.  Thanks for the entertaining response.  :)LeftCoastMan (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

one oppose equals three supports
I don't want to clutter up the thread, but "one oppose equals three supports" was serious, not snarky. Generally speaking, candidates need to be north of 70% to succeed. At 75%, that mean there is exactly one oppose vote for every three supports. Add an oppose, and it takes three more supports to keep the percentage from dropping below 75%. That's all it means, but it makes sense.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
Regardless of the merits of your particular viewpoint, there's only so much militancy we can stomach here before it becomes impossible to maintain any sort of collaboration and co-operative work ethic. Please take the next fortnight off to reflect on this. Moreschi (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my fucking god. I'm in tears. I'm hurt.  I'm crying.  Oh wait.  I don't give a shit.LeftCoastMan (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I getting paid during this time off? Oh wait, it's a volunteer effort.  Yawn fucking yawn.  But I did prove a major point to my friends on Facebook.  Polite POV bullshit trumps accurate, evidence-based editing with pointed commentary.  Good luck with the alt-med, religious fucktards.  LOL. LeftCoastMan (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken that as a request to remove your Talk page access for the duration of your block, and have made the necessary adjustment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm back
FTWLeftCoastMan (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)