User talk:Locke9k

Good work on entropy page!
Good to see you taking the time to rewrite the entropy page! Although I prefer a more formal information theoretical introduction, the pevious version had issues that needed to be fixed. I didn't have much time to do that myself. There indeed was some OR introduced by Kpedersen, in partcular his edits of yesterday. But I did not want to revert without doing any rewriting myself, as that would likely lead to tensions. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Essentially, with the new introduction and overall rework, I am trying to make the page introduction to entropy unnecessary.  My view is that the central page should be accessible to everyone while maintaining the technical detail.  Hopefully we can get to that point.  Locke9k (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

edit summaries
Problemantic edit summaries can be removed via WP:OVERSIGHT. Oversighters can delete edit content, edit summaries, the username associated with an edit, or any combination of the above. They can also undo those actions if necessary.

You may want to email the oversighters about a recent problem you discussed.

In the spirit of WP:BEANS I tried contacting you about this via email but you have your email turned off. You can use Special:Preferences to turn it on if you want to. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I may go there as well. In using the admin noticeboards I was simply following the advice given in this essay: Threats of violence. Locke9k (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Insanity is a condition
I left the condition stuff alone last time it came up because a psychological condition is still a condition. As a skeptic who doubts that the laws of physics as we currently understand them would allow for "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" I'd suggest putting back the "is a condition" line. It'll molify the people who believe that power lines are making them sick and its not actually incorrect.

We just then go on to demonstrate how the research demonstrates the character of the condition to be a psychological one, not a physcal one. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what we think and of the merits of your reasoning, it unfortunately appears to constitutes original research. Unless there are multiple reliable sources demonstrating that the medical and scientific communities consider this a condition, it is inappropriate for us to represent it as such.  If you or someone else can provide such references, I will happily support that wording and will even change it myself.  In their absence, however, I cannot agree with it.  Its not our job to "mollify" people (although of course we should always be courteous and seek consensus); it is our job to accurately represent reliable sources.  Thanks for the comment, though, and if we can work together to do some needed cleanup on this article I think we can accomplish a lot.  I suggest on this topic we go to the article discussion page for any further talk on it.Locke9k (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Simonm223 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Varanus bitatawa

 * Sorry, been swamped with work lately and missed the item. Thanks for the heads up though!  Locke9k (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

News from Planet Lizard
I recently created the article List of piscine and amphibian humanoids to deal with overspill from List of reptilian humanoids, then reworked the bird people article into List of avian humanoids (Yes, I do have Asberger's syndrome). I've been thinking of creating a new article List of invertebrate humanoids, to deal with bug-eyed monsters, Mothmen and the frankly ridiculous article octopus person, but I'm not sure how to go about it or even if it's worth doing. What do you think?  Serendi pod ous  00:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Order
Hi my fellow! Question: Is there any order in List of reported lake monsters? Alphabetical or something? Should I order the monsters? --Againme (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fragility
see Talk:Fragility. Thanks, -- Marie Poise (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)