User talk:Mike Searson/archive8

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's
Hello Mike, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here Thanks!  Nancy Heise    talk  01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mike, I see your post in the discussion area but you have not posted a vote (voting area is above the discussion area). I am just reminding you here if you did not see my reminder on the CC talk page.  Nancy Heise    talk  04:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, sorry, I am sure its because of all the discussion going on. The voting area is here and if you click on that link you will read my summary of what we are voting on. The opposers want us to eliminate the fact stated in the article text that "some historians agree and some disagree" regarding the Catholic point of view of its own origins. This is featured in the lead in the third paragraph. It is also featured in greater detail in the Origins and Missions section. . Thanks for taking the time to review this and giving us your opinion.   Nancy Heise    talk  04:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We used the word many because the Nat Geo source says "after the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church of Rome". We interpreted this as meaning historians for centuries looked back ... because the position of pope was institutionalized centuries ago, a fact also brought out in Nat Geo and Duffy's book.  Nancy Heise    talk  04:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Giving up
Hi, Yes, that article is unusual in that it gets a lot of edits. A few other articles that I watch have had very few edits for 3 or 4 months now. But giving up on that article is similar to what Mark Twain said about his smoking habit: "Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times.".... History2007 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Hamer
Thanks for the kind words! Pardon my compulsion, but I had to trim your trim of the photo caption to sidestep an orphan. 'Tis a sad thing, this OCD. Thanks again--HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Jokes
In response to your "the difference between a Catholic Theologian and a Mafia Don is that the Mafia Don still believes in God":

Q: What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist?

A: Sometimes you can negotiate with terrorists.

Harmakheru (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

GNR
Hey, when you have the time can you please added the sources for Guns n roses being metal back. Some IP address removed them and metal for no reason. Rockgenre (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Animals
Are you still and Active participant of WikiProject Animals WP:ANIMALS ? Please let me know.  Zoo Pro  05:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers i am just trying to re-activate the project it seems to have become stale.  Zoo Pro  06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

kingsnake
Most websites have ads, including flashing banners. I know it's annoying but it doesn't discredit a source, and their research isn't reflecting any advertising and remain neutral, so this is not spam. What I like about the kingsnake article is that they actually cite published works and books, which we fail to do. Whether our information is inclusive to theirs or not, including a site that is verified increases the reliability of our article. I'd put it back myself but I'll let you decide. -- penubag  (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Audie Murphy film count
In the article Audie Murphy, when I changed a passage from "He [meaning Murphy] also starred in an impressive 39 Hollywood Western films," to "...33 Hollywood Western films," you changed it again, to "...39 Hollywood films." Your edit summary read, "Source says 39. Wikipedia is not about TRUTH it's about reporting what the source says." I've put your talk page on my watchlist pending the remainder, if any, of this discussion, so you can respond right here and I'll know. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Taking that regulation that literally was undoubtedly not the intent of its creators, as that is contrary to making Wikipedia a viable information source, i.e., to the detriment of the project, and is just generally unreasonable.
 * 2) There was and is no source cited for that statement.
 * 3) You removed the limitation to his Westerns, which changes the number anyway. "39" that way not only (properly) doesn't count the Spanish Western The Texican and the Israeli spy flick Trunk to Cairo, but also leaves out A Time For Dying, which "33 Hollywood Westerns" must have counted, and which I left in. Since I said in my edit summary that I had my doubts about that one, I'll leave the current version in place. If you actually have a source that makes a specific statement to this, make up your mind as to exactly what it says, and put up a cite. What I'll do depends on how you end up leaving it.
 * 4) Points 2 & 3 mean that you made a significantly inaccurate edit summary, which is against regs, and rightfully so.


 * I said that I put your talk page on my watchlist so you could reply right here (thereby keeping the entire discussion together). Why didn't you?
 * I said that I was leaving "39" up on its own terms (that's what I meant, and it still looks quite clear to me). The only question to that number is whether or not the still unreleased ...Dying is a "Hollywood" film, and it is a question.
 * If it says "Guns Magazine" in the indicia, fine, but as of a year after the date in the cite, the logo at least was still simply Guns. A website saying "Guns Magazine" doesn't prove much of anything about this point to me.
 * I do have a good print source, the Sue Gossett book already cited. She pretty much says whether Audie starred or what in each movie, and that Texican and Trunk... aren't Hollywood films. --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The regs request keeping discussions together. I find your objection completely lacking in sense.
 * Huh?
 * What their own website says now is irrelevant. It's what was current at the time of publication of the cited material that counts. Hence, my cites of various articles from widespread issues of the same magazine cite different publishing companies. Goes for the title, too.
 * No count given. Technically, to count them up myself is flirting with original research and synthesis, but I temper those regs with common sense, too.
 * I am in no way, shape, or form anti-gun, and have in fact read issues of that publication. How do you think I know what the logo looked like? You are the one who gives every appearance of being offended, that closing smiley face notwithstanding.
 * BTW, I meant to acknowledge in my other post that the first link you put on my talk page led to a count of Murphy starring films, no restriction to Westerns as originally stated. I wonder if he is discounting Night Passage and The Unforgiven, wherein Audie is billed after James Stewart and Burt Lancaster & Audrey Hepburn, respectively? --Tbrittreid (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Western Arms Company need images!
Hi Mike! Can you help me with your knowledge on weapons by adding a picture of the Colt SAA revolver on the page of Great Western Arms Company? I nominated this page for DYK, and I think with a good image, the Great Western Arms Company can be a lead hook. Thanks in advance.--  C  anniba loki  01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How's it going?
It's been a while. I was wondering if you could help with this thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. It's for identifying a pretty good image of a monitor lizard, taken on Airlie Beach. I think it's Varanus varius, but I'd like to see your opinion on it. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Colt SAA, Expiration of the Rollin White Patent
Hello Mike, I changed the 1872 for April 4, 1869. The US patent laws of this period allowed protection for 14 years, with the possibility to renew for 7 years. Rollin White tried to renew it, but the Government (President Grant) refused. Source: A study of Colt Conversions 1997 ba Bruce McDowell, ISBN 0-87341-446-2 Page 15. Yours, hmaag (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting elections
You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Hi Mike, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here. I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  19:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Envy
Hi, noticed your (proper) edit removing "how to" in Savannah monitor. Decided to look at your user page. A green iguana AND an African Grey. Dagnabbit. I owned a green iguana, and had my eyes set on a Grey. Ahhhhgh. Some people can only dream! Piano non troppo (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your Thanksgiving
Hi, Mike; long time no talk ! I got to my homestate in September, but not to your neck of the woods-- I rarely make it up there since my mother died. Thank you for the kind note about my dog. I am so sorry to hear about your Ozzy, and your many losses happening over holidays: that, and not being there, makes it so much harder. I was very lucky: I had time to prepare, the timing was as good as it could have been, considering the circumstances (my son was able to see his dog over Thanksgiving), and his passing was peaceful and pain free. It's always good to hear from you; I hope 2010 will be good to you! Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cyclura
I'm sorry when my comments were overly harsh, and it's a bad coincidence that Fifelfoo posted his critique of the referencing at nearly the same time. But my "oppose" means not "I don't think this article should be a FA", but "there's a lot of work left to do", and I'm willing to help with some of that work. What about I put up some detailed stuff on the article talk page, so the FAC stays clean? I've no doubt it'll get there eventually. Ucucha 13:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear. Good luck with getting the laptop to function! Ucucha 17:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have another look tomorrow evening - first there are exams. :) Ucucha 23:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

GA
Thanks for the review and positive comments. The image suggestion is a good one, but it's very difficult to get free images of some of these Himalayan birds, it's only recently we obtained the one that we have. Thanks again  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

iguana
My clarify tag was just because "tubercles" is a hard word (I don't know what it means at least) and should be glossed in the text. The linked wiki article doesn't explain what it means. What is it describing in this context? A spiky protuberance? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I was trying to find a better way to say "spiky jowls"...make sense?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Peso.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peso.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Clan MacIntyre GA
Hi Mike, Thanks so much for your amazingly prompt review of the Clan MacIntyre article. I expected to have to wait for weeks or longer. I noted your comment regarding ALT tags. Are these the same as ALT text? (I found a Wikipidia article on Alt text but nothing on Alt tags.) Truthfully, I'm not terribly sophisticated in computer stuff and didn't realize there was such a thing until you mentioned it. I plan to work on Alt text for the article. While ordinarily I would not presume, based on prior comments on this page I believe a "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" would be appropriate in your case. Thanks again, I'm really excited. It's my first GA rating.--Tomaterols (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a chance, check out the images in the Clan MacIntyre article now. This is my first attempt at composing alt text.  The article on how to do it is rather picky and there is probably room for improvement on what I've added, but it's a start.  You may also want to look at the latest discussions on the article talk page.  I don't think Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) is correct, but would welcome a second opinion, if you're so inclined. Anyway, thanks for putting me on to alt text and everything else.--Tomaterols (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A new gastropod article
Hey Mike Searson, Thanks for the new stub on Hyperaulax ridleyi, that was a nice surprise. If you think you might actually develop an interest in gastropods, I will invite you to join the WikiProject Gastropods. In either case, Seasons Greetings and all good wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a fast reply! Oh so you do have an interest in tropical tree snails, that's very cool! Yes, gastropod taxonomy has been in flux for a couple hundred years already, and nowadays it is even more in flux because of the research results from recent DNA work and the challenge of cladistics to the regular Linnaean system. But you did fine with what you came up with! The important thing is simply to find a family (or subfamily or superfamily) and then we can fix it up from there. At Project Gastropods we are using one system of taxonomy from 2005 as outlined here:.

But you don't need to study that article, or even read it, because all of the gastropod family articles have up to date taxoboxes now, so you can always check the family article and see how the taxobox looks there and copy it. Two of us in the project are halfway through our 5,000 stubs updating the taxonomy in those, and so maybe by the middle of 2010 all the taxonomy in the Project will be uniform and pretty much up to date. I hope so anyway.

If you have any inclination at all to create more tree snail articles, that would be excellent. I can help you with anything you might need, or we can just fix up the taxonomy and or anything else after you make them. No pressure of course, but if you feel at all inspired, please go ahead and Be Bold!

Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and P.S. I wanted to say that if you like, in taxoboxes you can simply include Class Gastropoda and then skip over the weird stuff and just include Family, Genus, and Species if that would make it more pleasant for you! best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am far from being an expert on tropical land snails, but I looked it up quickly and from what I read, the tribe Odontostomini (to which this genus belongs) are ground-dwelling. The name Odontostomini means "tooth-mouthed" snails, the shell aperture is narrowed and constricted with "teeth" in order to protect the snail against being eaten by ground-dwelling beetles. The fastest and easiest general source for this kind of info is a book called "Compendium of Landshells" by R. Tucker Abbott, 1989, published by American Malacologists, ISBN 0-915826-23-2. It's got thousands of pictures in it, if you like tropical snails you might enjoy owning a copy of it. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bankers Special
Mike, I never heard about a Colt Single Action Bankers Special. The Bankers Special appeared in 1928, it was a short barreled revolver in the Colt Police Positive series. Happy 2010 Yours Hanshmaag (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

in re V. exanthematicus article
There is a small gang wishing to use the topic for a personal agenda, as can be seen from the dogmatic how-to content which you've removed, and the slanders against a certain individual. This sort of thing is a continual and vexatious issue on Wikipedia. The climategate edit wars that revealed the seizure of Wikipedia by a coordinated group is one of the more recent and high profile examples of this. Coincidentally, the varanus team is linked to the hockey team via the 'professor of doom', Eric Pianka, monitor biologist - a charter member of the environmentalist elite.

Since Berkeley began offering courses in activism, the universities have churned out lots of savvy people who are accustomed to working a propaganda machine on a daily basis - it's second nature to them. They know that 'framing the argument', flooding the discourse, 'keeping on the message', silencing debate are basic everyday tools of the trade for promoting an agenda. That was Agenda 101, and they've gone well beyond first-year liberal arts propaganda studies. Mainstream media has just disgraced itself thoroughly. Perhaps it should be Solomon of AP who accepts the Darwin Award for Journalism. I think they just killed every form of subscription revenue. Wikipedia should be on guard lest it become WinstonSmithPedia. I'd like Jimmy's Appeal (for money) to follow Jimmy's Apology for acting as Cited Authority of the Church of Climatology, incidentally...lol.

Apropos the content of that article: "When confronted by a snake or other large predator the monitor rolls onto its back and grasps a hind leg in its mouth forming a ring with its body and making itself harder for the animal to swallow whole.[2]"

The above is pure baloney. Dan Bennett was once shown a small sav that had been in a bag with others and had defensively locked on to its own tail. I'm sure the boys had a good laugh at him behind his back. The defense of a sav in a tight spot is to clamp onto the enemy and lock. This is wonderfully effective against a snake, one of the predators that can follow them down their burrows, because it cuts off the snake's circulation, resulting in death, and absolutely prevents the snake from swallowing anything past the clamped off part. There is no way in nature a sav will a) roll over on his back for defense, b)bite himself for any reason, c)save himself from being eaten with any passive defense - snakes are not their primary predators and anything else will pick them apart in pieces.

Dan Bennett strove to fill a small pamphlet with meager content and that was overboard on the effort to fluff it out. Dan does not keep reptiles or do much actual scholarship on any topic. He seeks an income as an activist/advocate and he's searching for an endangered animal that can capture the public fancy. He is hardly a reputable authority on anything about animals except what he can produce data for.

Make a better new year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.172.210 (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

NSN
Hi Mike,

As you can see, I have edited the National for NATO on the SMF page :P because of this, I tought it may be better (NATO Stock Number, a 13-digit numeric coding system used to define and identify NATO military supply equipment. Also known in the USA as the National Stock Number.)

BTW, I own a grey parrot, wear a datejust too and im Antonio at USN hehe, just tought I may let you know it wasnt with bad intention the modification.

Thanks!

Antonio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.189.129 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, you should register here and help me cleanup these knife articles! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mini-Uzi
The information is correct, why did you delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.121.210 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.162.153 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You made it
Congratulations! Ucucha 08:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Bucklew GAR
Where are we on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Glock Article
The IP User has made some fairly serious accusations about your demeanor today. I'm sure s/he ws just trying to improve the article, there's no need for name calling. The history page for Glock supports the user's claims. The other user did also correct a factual error in the article. By no one's count is the number of models 39. Perhaps it would be wise to encourage contributions like that instead of getting defensive about a minor point which has caused confusion since at least last October according to the article's talk page. Srwm4 (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like she corrected the factual error and took a little jab. Looks fairly harmless to me.  He got the info right, and gave you a bit of a hard time.  While that may not have been necessary, I don't see how your response helped the matter, either.  Sometimes you just need to know when to stop fueling the flame war - especially with IP users. :-) Srwm4 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, he's a cowardly little punk that started off with personal attacks on the wrong person. It wasn't his point about 22 vs 37...it was his attitude.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's still no excuse to be hostile and vulgar, Mike. Calm down.  There's never any need to go name calling.  And it looks like they've stopped for the night.  A nickel's worth of free advice: take his lead.  Srwm4 (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm calm. Dude.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that the other user has been blocked for vandalism. Personally I don't see how he did anything but provide (IMHO) correct information after you continued to delete it. I sincerely hope that your temper has not scared this user from making more contributions in the future. Srwm4 (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I say thank your lucky stars that 1) the IP user isn't familiar with Wikipedia and didn't report you for abuse first, and 2) that this had been settled by the time that I came across it. Srwm4 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His information was not correct and he was being a disrespectful snot-nosed little punk.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:BLUEIGUANA.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BLUEIGUANA.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

note
My apologies if I caused you additional grief by taking that user to ANI. I talk about nannyism, but I get a little nannyistic myself at times. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want me to stay off your page, then withdraw your sock puppet complaint. Until then, I have every intention of defending myself against bullies like you. Posting my name was uncalled for and out of line. You're the one who chose, by doing that, to make this personal. When you do things like that, you should expect retribution. Srwm4 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs)
 * If you are not guilty of being a sockpuppet, why do you care? If I am wrong, I will look like quite the asshole for falsely accusing you, won't I?  I see you put me on your hitlist, and here you are telling me for the second time to expect retribution.  So I expect it.  Thank you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears you already look like quite the asshole, friend. I care because you turned this into a personal vendetta by reporting me and then subsequently posting my real name.  You have stated that you are a Jarhead, and have posted personally identifiable information about me without warrant.
 * I asked this morning for an explination, apology, and a redaction of your claim. Until such time as I receive these from you, you shall remain on my "hitlist" as you call it.
 * Regards, Srwm4 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be about me so I'll add my comment to this section rather than creating a new one. I noticed on Fisher Queen's talk page that you claimed to have admitted to over-reacting and that you apologized for your actions. Why lie? I never received any such apology from you. See my talk page, if you like - specifically the history. One time you called me a fuckchop, and another you put a vandalism warning up. But no apology...76.24.147.114 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just remove the entire reference from the article? It really doesn't add much, and has become quite the lightning rod around here.  If people want to know how many models the company produces, then there's a link to Glock pistol in the next paragraph - let people count for themselves and include the variations they wish to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.147.114 (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)