User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive2

Mainpage
Hi Pete! I hope that your holiday break was good and that your new year has gotten off to a good start. I wanted to be sure you saw my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory regarding the main page summary. I have requested that Game theory appear on the mainpage and have provided a brief summary of it. Have you had a chance to look at it? Do you think any changes ought to be made? On another note, I would like to get Nash equilibrium up to featured article quality, but have been having a hard time thinking of what to do with it. Any ideas? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

IKEA
Thanks for the message! It made me laugh. I am at once horrified and fascinated by IKEA. I either find things there that I want desperately (sectional couch), or that make me want to run screaming for the hills (strange coffee table reminiscent of a wave, with storage underneath each crest). Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 05:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Coffee table reminiscent of a wave (otherwise known as LAGFORS, and a steal at $129 U.S.!) Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 07:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Yeah, I agree about the vandalism. I was amazed at the level of vandalism too. There is supposed to be a limit on the number of accounts that one IP can create, which should limit throw away account vandalism. But if someone has access to several IPs, this can end up being a lot of vandalism. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not sure how we compared. I know that Cheese is infamous for having an extreme amount of vandalism.  Cheese... *sigh*.  I think the general consensus is just revert it.  People really don't want to protect or semi-protect the featured article, since it provides an introduction to our project  for so many people.  On the other hand, our featured article ends up vandalized a reasonable amount of time.  It doesn't look like game theory had anything important happen to it, although it does look like a lot of changes went into Deal or No Deal. So manybe something good came out of it.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge categories?
Hi Pete, somehow I stumbled on your user page, and noticed your professional interest in ethology. I was wondering if you think if it's a good/bad idea to merge Category:Ethology and Category:Animal behaviour, or should the tags be removed. --Uthbrian (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

More admins?
Hi Pete - I saw your comments on the vote about rollback privs. I think the "shortage of admin" problem is mostly that there are lots of pages that need administrative attention, but no one works on them. WP:CP is one example. I worked on that one for a while, but it sucks. I for one think we would get more done if we could get rid of a few select administrators. It seems like to me that half of WP:AN and WP:ANI is filled with stuff about a few problem folks. But, that's just me. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pete. Same thing. It's not that we need more admins. Adminship is just a few extra buttons that every user who we trust not to wreak havoc should have. Look at it this way - not having the extra buttons means somebody has to do stuff instead of you. Zocky | picture popups 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Lulu
Since you mention it, I think this manages to be gracious without either being sappy or overly didactic. Hope so. All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Banes 2
You are currently listed as both a Support vote and a Neutral vote on this RfA, perhaps you intended to use the comment section instead. You may want to give it a look. NoSeptember  talk  18:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
I just recently saw your vote at my RFA. Before you think of me as some hateful person, I would like for you to know the true, whole story based from me, and not from the blocked admin.

A user named Mcfly85 was on Wikipedia some time ago and created sockpuppets to vandalize my previous RFA. Bieng Bipolar, you could probably imagine the reaction to this, as you saw. I never meant to offend anyone as I probably did with my statement, and I have apoligized many times for this already. Freestylefrappe just keeps holding it against me for some reason.

This IS NOT an attempt for you to try and change your vote, just a clarification on what really happened because the last thing I want is for another Wikipedian to think I'm some horrible person. — M o e   ε  04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Moe Epsilon just withdrew his nomination and left Wikipedia, thought you might like to know. KI 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Far-less
G'day Pete,

redirects to non-existent articles can be speedied, but ideally, yeah, they would have been deleted by the fellow who deleted the originally article in the first place (the "under authority") thing. I've deleted the redirect now. Thanks. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image removal
Sorry to edit your userpage, but I had to remove the image Image:Arsenal FC.png as it is used in Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Wikipedia's fair use policy forbids the use of fair use images in user pages, so I have no choice but to take it out. Qwghlm 23:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
For your kind support of my Rfa, which passed. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best  Ban  e  z  17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

genotype/phenotype series template?
I've noticed Samsara has been adding lots of "see also" interlinks among articles relating to genotype/phenotype interactions. This is nice to let readers see connected topics. There are now enough, that I wonder if it would be time to create a Article series that would provide navigation for all these interrelated articles. I confess, I've never created such a template, and don't know all the fiddly details, but it seems like it would be nice. What do you think? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Current discussion is on LotLE's talk. Samsara contrib talk 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerts
Gosh... I can't remember half the details you do about the concerts I've seen. But your list reminds me of one I saw at a club in 1986-7 or so that had the three currently premier punk trios: Hüsker Dü, Minutemen, Meat Puppets. The tree apparently had a tour together (don't know how many gigs or where): it was interesting that is was three bands, all punk bands with the same instruments, but such different takes on what a guitar/bass/drums could do. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke's RfA
Hi Pete, thanks for your support in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Hi Pete, just to let you know that I'm going on wikibreak for a while. Bad timing, but I'm quite ill with a flu and can't afford the occasional late nights on WP. Cheers, Samsara contrib talk 12:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Human height
Pete - I went ahead and archived the talk page. I only copied the most recent discussion back to the talk page, since it looked like it was ongoing. If I missed one, you can just cut and paste it back. I think that non-admins (who have been around for more than a few days) are allowed to make page moves on most pages. But with all the changes going on recently, that might have changed... Either way, I'm happy to do it. Any excuse to get away from work :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Flood of new templates
Hi Pete,

These are the latest:
 * Template:phylo
 * Template:speciation
 * Template:origin of life

This is what they look like:

Please add any articles that I may have overlooked. The next template will be evolutionary ecology: User:Samsara/Template04.

Cheers,

Samsara contrib talk 04:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote on natural selection intro passage
As a contributing editor of the English wikipedia article on natural selection, you are being invited to vote on two different versions of a controversial passage of the introduction. Please see details on the talk page, Talk:Natural selection.

Yours sincerely,

Samsara contrib talk 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

jesus and santa
you have the patience of jesus, mother theresa, santa, and ghandi. just keep stressing to them that the text should clarify cause and effect as much as possible and should also highlight whatever facilitates the elucidation of such. btw, samsara has been making some seriously incorrect statements and he's too easily scared by the freelance "scholastics". i lost him already but you could maybe try to give him some advise/support. best Marcosantezana 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Natural selection is Science Collab of the Week
Samsara contrib talk 11:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism more swiftly. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 02:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientific peer review
Hi, you might be interested in an new project here on Wikipedia aiming at peer review of articles concerning science, WP:SPR. Karol 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

European Starling
Thanks for the caption for the European Starling. I spent an hour trying to ID that bird. Miskatonic 19:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I have filed a request for Arbitration with regard to Marcosantezana here.KimvdLinde 06:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail
Did you get my e-mail? KimvdLinde 04:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Statistical game theory AFD
Your points are well taken, my vote has been changed. I won't say that your kick-A Black Flag T-shirt had anything to do with it. Ifnord 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Stastical GT and Marco
Hi Pete - Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been on vacation, a much needed one! I have voted on the AfD. I take a pretty limited view of PN, and since it looks like the user who created it was acting in good faith, its probably better that it not just "disappear".

Re:Marco, I didn't realize that his POV war was based on Sober's work. Sober is certainly very well regarded, but not because the stuff he says is widely regarded as correct. I will actually know more in 10 weeks or so about his stuff on causation in evolutionary biology. Next time I see him, I'll have to mention that he sparked this controversy. I'm sure he'll be amused. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Arbcom accepted the case, now we get to repeat everything we already said in a different format! I'm glad its there, but Arbcom can be very tiring.

Best response function
Hi pete - I hope all is going well. I was curious what program you used to generate those best response figures. I want to generate some to illustrate smoothed fictitious play/smoothed best response (both for wikipedia and my disertation). thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wouldn't mind sending me the LaTeX source, that would be great. The best I can do is Mathematica... and those graphics suh-uck.  I don't know much about LaTeX graphics, so it might not be able to do what I need.  But there is no time to learn like the present :)  Thanks again. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Kin selection
Help! The Kin selection article really needs someone with a good background to make sure its somewhat accurate. I have been trying to make it readable and informative, but I haven't taken a single biology course since HS. Could you please take a look? Thanks -Ravedave 02:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry if you think I'm too new to be an adminship but I've been being a Wikipedian since December, 2003. I just didn't have an account. I know all about Wikipedia. I have interviewed many Wikipedians and have even made friends with a few. I WAS a perfect adminship nominee. An old nominee, General Eisenhower 17:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

CJ
We have replied to your conserns on the talk page - but I just wanted to let you know that this WikiSupremeCourt is not in any way currently supported by CJ - and another user opened a straw poll on the matter in interests of fairness, which so far all users have opposed. I have also rewrote the page per your and others conserns. Overall we promote civility, and we do not in any way brutally enforce it - we work through friendliness :) I hope this assists you. Ian13/ talk 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Question
When you said ' "However, this isn't the place to criticise a third-party", point well taken, ' were you replying to my question about the Editor Review or was it something else? Evan Robidoux 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Game Tree
Crap... I really should have written down the source when I referenced it. It was... er... some book? I think it was a text book, but I don't remember which. I need to go find it again, which could take a while. I think it was in my Discrete Math text... but I could be wrong. Fieari 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Linspire
Thanks for the comments on the article. I've added a few dates and two references, but must head back to writing papers. I've noted your GA nomination of various game theory topics and will keep them at the back of my mind, hopefully to review at my next wikipedia bout. Cheers, User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Natural selection
I am starting to loose track - can you check Marcosantazena's most recent (and extensive) changes and see if any need to be reverted? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to a request to work on this I wrote at Slrubenstein page: I was already planning on a major writing drive this weekend on the sandbox version I am writing. Maybe it is time to get that one to an acceptable version. I want to make some graphics to explian the issue in simple terms. So, lets work together at that page this weekend, and see if we have a reasonable version by the end of it. We can than continue to work on the sandbox version, and replace whenever here is a substantial better version. KimvdLinde 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Come over and have alook at the new NatSel page User:KimvdLinde/Natural selection. It is still in progress, but I think it is getting shape. Btw, good letter in science! KimvdLinde 03:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Natural Selection May 8
I am concerned with Marcos mucking this up some more, though I think there is an injunction against him now. I will protect the page if necessary - but do not want to do so if there is more work you want to do on it. Please let me know when it is in what you consider a satisfactory state. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your fans
My pleasure. Let me know if you need any help regarding those articles! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, actually this is a problem. "Merge and delete" is not a possible closure, because it is incompatible with the GFDL.  If any text written by someone else is merged by you (say), then the orignal authorship information has to be preserved and publically excessible.  Since deleted edits are hidden to all but administrators, if the original article is deleted there is no way for most people to know who the original author was.  I would say you should contact the closing admin and get her to either decide "merge and redirect" or "delete".  In the former anyone can do that, she'll have to do it in the later.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

New NatSel version ready
Pete, I think the new version is close to getting finished. Would you mind to have a look at it and shoot us down? User:KimvdLinde/Natural_selection Kim van der Linde at venus 15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gone live with new Natural selection version
I just copied the newly developed version of the natural selection page to the main space after it was clear that most editors supported the new version over the current version. Kim van der Linde at venus 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Guess I have to say congratulations. Furthermore, the article has been reviewd by a bunch of biologists, and generally positive (except you know who). So, take it easy with reading it, it was more to let you know what the latest version was.Kim van der Linde at venus 00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The operation of Hamilton's Rule in humans
Hi Pete

I am writing a paper (for journal submission) on the operation of Hamilton's Rule in humans, and have asked the question below on the HR discussion page. As you seem to be very knowledgeable in this field, I was wondering if you might give your view?

It is unethical to manipulate genetic relatedness in humans. Furthermore, without exception, all studies of HR in humans to this date suffer one common drawback: the evidence is entirely observational, and it is therefore in no case possible to exclude categorically all confounding variables (interaction time, reciprocity etc.), so as to make an unequivocal test of the claim that human altruistic behaviour is modulated by the genetic relatedness, when other factors are held constant. In the light of this, what would constitue unequiocal evidence for the operation of Hamilton's Rule in humans ? Varga Mila 08:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Human behavioral ecology

 * Hi Pete. Don't know if you're aware of the human behavioral ecology page. If not, I thought it might interest you. It's pretty skimpy. Maybe you'd be willing to add something to it. EPM 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bored of being a papa?
Hey Pete - Congrats on the new kid! I hope all is going well. If you get bored of being a papa, I thought I would let you know I'm starting to work on Nash equilibrium. I'm toying around with a bunch of things so I'm keeping it in my userspace right now: User:Kzollman/Nash equilibrium. Feel free to chime in and add stuff there. I think this will be tough to write, but a worthwhile endeavor. Talk to you later! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 07:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim's RfA
There is something to what you say (although the case has not been closed, it is fairly clear it will go against Marcosantezana, and rightfully so). On the other hand, you and I have managed to work on Heritability with Marcosantezana without having to go to arbitration. Time will tell how well she responds to editors changing her version of Natural selection.

She is not unlike many new PhDs. She has a naive views of things, and full of the arrogance of youth. I went through the same stage, thinking that pop/quant genetics ala Kempthorne was the only way to look at things. I presume she will calm down a little and realize she doesn't have a monopoly on the truth. Good luck with your research -- I'm doing the same until summer school starts after the 4th of July. Ted 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to go back and look at Heritability. I've made several changes. I had hoped to avoid modifying the introduction, but felt I needed to say something, so that definitely needs a look-see. Unfortunately, I see everything through "agricultural eyes" and not as much through correlation/regression. Ted 18:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you would see, read, and comment on my entries at the bottom of Aggression. Islandsage 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Sorry about my edit to the admin vote for KimvdLinde. It was not intentional, my connection dropped while I was editing. 59.20.72.35 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Natural selection
I have foolishly tried to start a discussion on Talk:Natural selection concerning the definition of natural selection. If you have time, I'd like you to contribute -- or to tell me I'm a complete whack-o. Thanks. Ted 17:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks Pete, I was surprissed how easy it actually wnet. How are you? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And before I forget, thanks for supporting me!
 * Yes, I know the stories from the people around me. I know, I will be carefull. I won't be the most sweeping aroun her admin you can imagine, but will do my share in vadal blocking, speedies and afd's. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us smile


sends his greetings and friendly smile to you! I do believe that smiles promote [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. I would request you to please spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing and all the best! <! -- Template:smile2 --> --Bhadani 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pinafore
Quite right; thanks for pointing that out. Tend to consider most of my stuff reasonably inconsequential here, & in tems of that particular article basic & trivial edits, though I agree that does not make them 'minor'...will endeavour to be more careful in what I mark as such Bridesmill 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Celtic foot
Couldn't find a PubMed citation, but I think you knew that. Strikes me as regurgitation of an OR article once published. Looks like the AfD opinion is likewise. I'd let that process conclude, see what the consensus is, and move from there. I'll voice something on AfD after I read a bit more. Cheers -- Samir  धर्म 15:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

race science
i just forgot about it. i'd still vote for deletion. --Rikurzhen 03:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Phyllis Jackson
In response to your message:
 * Well, thanks for your research, Pete! It's been interesting watching this whole thing go on while I've been stuck at home sick.  Sorry it seems to have been a waste of your time.  - Tapir Terrific 23:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer of papers - I've managed to get hold of one of them (see discussion on the delete page) which I read through and think is not relevent to the article at all. I think I'll give the two "the foot" papers a miss as I think its pretty much established that the article is going to go anyway and besides, Charlesknight has read them (poor sod!) take care Mammal4 11:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!


Hi there! Thank you for voting on my recent request for adminship, which did not succeed by a vote of 3/14/3. Not to worry, though; I am far from disappointed. The vast majority of the votes, even those in opposition, were quite positive. To be honest, I was not expecting it to succeed, and nominated myself on a bold spur-of-the-moment decision. Apparently, I'm not quite as experienced as I thought I was--I was sure I registered in February rather than April--but never fear! Emc² said it best: "Besides, you don't need to be a sysop to write good articles." I'll just continue doing what I'm doing, and perhaps I'll see you again in three months' time. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
I've got so many of these to do, I'm just on autopilot now...



User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me. PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Celtic toes again
Re: your message: Yep, that's Britton, back again. Last week he had some other sock puppets, EnglishStone and LaPiedraInglesa, who were blocked. He continues to try to pester IrishGuy. Loads of fun! Thank for pointing out this new sock. - Tapir Terrific 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: your message: I'm not really sure. It's obviously a formality, but i just put in a checkuser request to confirm that they are the same person.  I know he was in contact with JesseW for a while, trying to get unblocked; Jesse didn't seem too sympathetic to his predicament, and might have some advice.  Let me know if you want me to do anything.  - Tapir Terrific 01:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its all happening again nooooo!! Seriously though I'll keep my eyes peeled for more sock puppets. BTW there is still some Phyllis Jackson stuff on the Morton's toe page - has it been cleared, or was it just missed?  Mammal4 09:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: your message: It looks like IrishGuy took care of it. (I'd already gone to bed so I didn't get your message until just now.  Thanks for putting that together, orphaned or not!) - Tapir Terrific 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops! thanks Mammal4 16:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sock Central
Hi, Pete.Hurd - Since I've been dealing with some problem sockpuppets lately, and since there are multiple editors interested in the BrittonLaRoche debacle, I put together a subpage that can be used to discuss sock issues. If you want, you can leave messages there - hopefully that'll be a good way for comments/questions/sightings to be seen by everyone involved. - Tapir Terrific 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, etc.

 * No problem
 * Well. Although the dissertation has me a bit down.  It'll pick up though, I'm sure.
 * Its on the list now. I've never dealt with WP:SSP before, so I may not be of much help.  It wasn't clear what the violation of the sock puppet policy was on first reading.  Has he attempted to create a false consensus somewhere?
 * How are things with you? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Wiki formatting must be simple, in order to produce a roughly uniform appearance across articles. Infoboxes are fine as long as they are used across the project generally and kept simple and used universally (a good example is the species taxoboxes). However, template:Infobox_Scientist is a really bad implementation of an infobox, produced by (who has less than 100 edits and hasn't even written his own userpage yet), though no doubt with best of intentions. I mean, who really wants to know whether someone is right or left handed? (this is utterly bewildering), let alone including every PhD student in a little box. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Human height
I just took a look at the article and the talk page. I do think that the article would benefit from some more referencing of even those things that seem perfectly obvious, but I didn't see anything that struck me as really problematic. I didn't find anything at Talk:Human height that doesn't seem to have been resolved sensibly. Can you clarify whether or not there is an ongoing problem? Jkelly 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Pete, your paragraph that you rewrote is well referenced and should be included. I agree with you that it appears that the deletions that User:01001 made were WP:POINTy based on the appropriate deletion of the OR on physics and human height.  I'm guessing he'll tire of it, but I've got the page on my watchlist.  Cheers -- Samir   धर्म 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychology Wiki
Hi Prof. Hurd,

I noticed that you are are a Professor in Psychology, and thought you might be interested in this project which I am involved in, The Psychology Wiki.

I won't say too much, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called Wikia, which was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. There are Google Ads on the site, but we dont make money from the project, they're just to pay for the bandwidth, storage and technical support that Wikia give us.

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I am fairly certain that I also emailed one of your students, Steve, this evening. Its a small world!

Question concerning RFA
Hi, there. Not to sound confrontational, but I have a question about your neutral comment on my RFA. You say that I have little editorial contributions to articles and less than one thousand mainspace edits, but just for clarification I'd like to ask how the number of mainspace edits one has is a factor in determining whether they are a candidate for sysopping, as I always believed that a sysop's duties are more based on their Wikipedia-space edits (as that is usually the general shift when a user is given sysop powers, from what I've observed). Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA


Hair
Ha ha ha !!! Those were the funniest diffs I've seen in a while! I'll tell my girlfriend that my receding hairline is due to my evolutionary superiority (and fashion sense...). I'll also keep an eye on our binary friend. Cheers, hope all is well -- Samir  धर्म 06:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Odhiambo Siangla
Hi. You may want to comment on Articles for deletion/Odhiambo Siangla. Nesbit 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi
--PEAR 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Spidey's theme
Spidey's theme = Mingus + Brubeck, see Talk:Spider-Man_%281967_TV_series%29

Cheers, 62.147.112.9 06:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

comment?
Hi Pete Hurd, would you be willing to comment on an RFC? Talk:Race_and_intelligence. I'll be interested to see if Wikipedia can handle this kind of ongoing editorial dispute, as otherwise it seems to me unproductive enough to warrant my leaving the project.--Nectar 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA, your oppose
Hi, Im not here to hound you into changing your vote, rather I would like to hear any specific comments you have about my comments on Polls are evil and why you feel I am wrong. I am worried I havn't explained my opinion fully or listened to the other points of view and would be grateful if you could help. I have invited other users to take part in this discussiom on my RfA talk page and would be delighted if you can join in. Thanks --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific notability guideline
Hey, I noticed that we have notability guidelines on everything from hotels to porn actors, but none on scientific concepts, theories, and terms. I started putting some intitial ideas together at User:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE and am looking for contributions and feedback now. If this essay can gather some steam we could move it into the WP space and make it an active proposal. There are lots of particulars in debates about scientific topics such as peer-review, citations, impact factor, etc., that editors should be made aware of before they offer an opinion based on the "Google test", and I think it would be a good way to collect all of this in one spot. Let me know if you're interested. Cheers, trialsanderrors 10:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Game Theory Wiki
I left a message at the Game theory Wikiproject that may be of interest to you: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory. EPM 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Mikhail Lebedev deletion.
It's funny that you mention that. I had noticed that too in the contributions category. It would seem extremely odd that someone would propose to have an article deleted and then become it's biggest champion for retention, even to point to putting all else aside. I'll post my comments on that page soon. Take care and thanks for the message. --Antorjal 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Trolling
Hey Pete. Agree with you that we are being trolled. I've got to head back to work but I'll handle it when I get back. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was beaten to the punch . Hope all is well. -- Samir  धर्म 01:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

tfd
Check out

Answers
About the article:
 * question about same references: Footnotes
 * I saw your edits on the article, thanks for your effort, just a few minor things left and I'll pass it

Second about you: NCurse work 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * you have an interesting job... :)
 * you say you're anarchosyndicalist, it means you're Monthy Python fan? :)

Thank you!
Thanks very much again for your kind comments and the barnstar with bar - I appreciate it ! =) Bwithh 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rushton article
Hi,

unfortunately I can't find the current issue of UWO's Gazette online (there website however is although from quick seraching I only find issues going up to 2003)...I do still have the print copy and can scan it if you would like to read the actual article).  Dowew 20:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Scientist
Please can you vote at to try to reach a consensus for shortening this infobox a little. bunix 00:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

List of games in game theory
Hi Pete - I hope all is well. I was thinking about putting this list up for WP:FL. What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rushton article
Hi, sorry this took a while. As a Prof you should know stuff sorta springs up. I scaned it in the defaul settings by accident. If it is not clear enough to read let me know and I will scan it in a higher resolution.

Dowew 21:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, if any of them are hard to read I can scan them again. There is also another short article unrelated to the main one called "Dont Rush to Conclusions" basically asking students not to trash Rushton's office as has happened in the past when he has published stuff like this.  I haven't uploaded it yet because my scanned cut the article off.  I will try doing that one tomorrow. Dowew 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

HeartattaCk
Pete, you got anything to add to this AfD? I haven't heard of that zine but that doesn't have to say anything, I don't think I could name a single punk zine past 1994. The discussion is pretty useless so far, so any expert opinion is appreciated. Cheers, trialsanderrors 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your strong support. Results are at Recently_created_admins. Warmly,  Durova  21:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

HeartattaCk
I believe the decision to delete this article was made in error, so I have asked for a deletion review. Since you were involved in the AfD on this, I wanted to inform you so that you might weigh in. PT (s-s-s-s ) 17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion
Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  06:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage
No problem! -- Vary | Talk 20:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Chicken.
Pete - I hope all has been well. Things for me have been busy, but otherwise good. Have you been following the discussion at Talk:Chicken (game)? I'm finding dealing with this user a bit frustrating, because he seems very set in stone. I'm going to a conference in Vancouver tomorrow, would you mind chiming in and keeping track of this for a few days? Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Probability base whatsit
Pete - I left a note on the talk page, I agree. I think its probably just vanity or adviser-cruft. Thanks for pointing it out. p.s. Vancouver is great. If this philosophy thing doesn't work out, I'm going to be homeless there (rather than somewhere else :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Humour
Glad I brightened up your day (or night). When people give you such brilliant reasons for supporting, what am I meant to say. It's hard to resist temptation occasionally. Cheers, Moreschi 10:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons
And on a personal, note, I'll try to take Kevin's comment to heart. I'd be up for running a weekly collaboration on a game theory article between Kevin, you and me. I don't think anyone else is active in game theory. PS I saw your tags at Winning strategy. What do you make of the article? ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Winning strategy
I brought it up at User talk:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE. ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Via Articles of Faith
I found your user page via Articles of Faith (band). Just wanted to say, I wish my psychology professors were as cute you and wore Black Flag t-shirts, but sadly, I'm not that lucky! Damn Canadians....see you when you get back from your Wikibreak! Missvain 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does a hotness total of 31 make him notable? ~ trialsanderrors 08:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * uh-oh... look, that's a notoriously unreliable source, that. For instance that quote about HACE being the second most unpleasant psychedelic experience of my life isn't quite correct, it was definitely the worst... and 31 chilipeppers does not accurately convey that fact that I'm actually a (totally non-notable) monster.  (I once wrote a statistics textbook, and included an analysis of the relationship between chilipeppers and the teacher quality rankings as a function of teacher sex from that site.  The publisher vetoed it, then changed their mind.  Apparently it was OK afterall, but only because my co-author was a woman...  Go figure.) Pete.Hurd 19:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "Notoriously unreliable"?? This seems to be spot on in more than one way &rarr; "probably one of the wikidest prof's i've had." So what were the findings? ~ trialsanderrors 10:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my RfA
Thank you for your vote of confidence in me. I was just wondering about one thing you said: The apparent tendency to be around when arguments start. I kind of thought I was somewhat on the other side of that statement in terms of tendencies. I tried to list all of my warts, although I forgot about the bio I created since I really never think about it—that was an unfortunate oversight not to list, although I purposefully left the link to it on my user page under the "Articles:Started" section despite the fact it is a slight embarrassment to have started it. Considering some of the pages and discussions I've been involved in, I thought my number of stressful incidents were quite modest. Does that really look like a tendency to be around when arguments start? Just interested in your feedback, not quibbling with the comment. —Doug Bell talk 09:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this stub?
Descent with modification. I thought the idea that ontogeny follows phylogeny had been famously discounted after Haeckel's fake slides. The article, however, is currently phrasing the existence of such a relationship as fact. Looks like a bare flank given current climate. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexual selection
Then feel free to add it in. The previous lead did not mention it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Biology &
I'd have no problem if you want to remove his comment and mine. I understand the "do not feed" idea, but I tend not to abide by it. (If I used smileys, I'd put one here.) - Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Menstruation and the origins of culture
Any professional opinion on this one? ~ trialsanderrors 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)