User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive3

AN/I
I just looked at the links, and really there's nothing to them. The alleged civility violations appear to be exist in the imagination of people who are terrified of "the f-word". Guettarda 05:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis
Hi Pete, happy new year. I think blanking talk pages is somewhat bad form unless there's something utterly egregious, so I archived the page as a compromise? Take care -- Samir धर्म 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary study of social behaviour merge/redirect
Ive left a response to your suggestion over on the Evolutionary study of social behaviour talk page. Orgone 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD-Space warfare in fiction
I see what you mean but I still think this article is salvageable, even if it needs a complete rewrite. I don't think the topic itself is invalid, so maybe a tag would be more appropriate than an AfD. Walton monarchist89 09:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I do acknowledge the shortcomings of the article and the topic in general, I would like to point out that if Space warfare in fiction is deleted, it will be formed again as a subsection of Space Warfare, where it will continue to grow at a rate that will probably be greater than the rest of the Space Warfare page. Eventually, somebody will spin it off back onto its own page. I suggest that, if Space warfare in fiction is deleted, you try to get the page salted.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally would not salt the page, but eventually, assuming the information from Space warfare in fiction goes back into Space Warfare and it is continually updated with proper referances, the subsection will get too large to remain just a subsection.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, all it takes is one Wikipedian who is being bold to end the RFA now and merge it back into the original article.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would argue that although the information contained within this page is OR now, that doesn't mean it will remain OR forever. When it comes to Wikipedia, I am more of the philosophy that OR articles should be sourced (if possible; cases of advertising or spam pages nonwithstanding) and improved instead of deleted.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you fully that this page needs lots of work. However, I disagree with the way it is currently getting done (first written in OR, then deleted, then rewritten again).  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review
I forgot what Wikipedia is, where truthiness is all that matters. I was curious about the project given comments from students -- I even had 8 students doing Wikipedia projects last semester for honors credit. I guess I have found out what I wanted. Genetics411 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

DrMcNeeley
sorry, I had him mixed up. I've apologized on the AfD page. DGG 06:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Save
Hey Pete,

I userfied the now-defunt Space warfare in fiction page. I am currently fixing it up to get it up to article standards. If you wish to contribute (I could really use help with sources), it can be found here. Thanks man.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah...
Gotcha. I was going to fix the second AFD, but it got deleted before I could. No harm done, though. -- Captain Wikify Argh! 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

legislatures
The last month or two of afd discussions has been accepting US and I think some UK candidates  for the national legislature, if belonging to major parties. It's rejected some that didn't win in the primary. I can find the discussions, but there was no really far-reaching or high-level discussion. Of course, i am perhaps remembering the ones I want to remember--I have not gone back and checked. Like all case law, the precedents are only as strong as the recent decisions
 * I think it is/would be a good rule--there are less than 300/year in the US, and probably a smaller number in the UK. But it is possible that Australia doesn't have this primary election step, but this week's discussions were I think all about major party candidates. Where that doesnt apply. I'd go with % of  vote, and make the cutoff somewhere between 10% and 30% in a two party system. With proportional representation, the standards are different & much harder to figure out, because the most important candidate of all parties are generally elected.
 * How far down this should go is a different question. DGG 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. What I said was recent decisions in the plural., not the most recent vote in the singular. For the short run we should have consistency, because how else will people know what and how to write. In the long run, standards change. Thee are some accepted standards that I would change, in various directions. My main actual concern is not schools or politicians, but academic faculty, where I think the rules contradictory and the application variable and often ignorant. But there are ongoing discussions about that, which should yield something slightly better, at least for the scientists. My main overriding concern is fairness, & thus the value of recent precedents. I am not sure we disagree on the principles. DGG 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So what is it to you?
--Michael Johnson 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just jumped - I thought you were haveing a go at me. I had just spent the last ten minutes trying to reply to the guy....! --Michael Johnson 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Morrell
He's a nice guy, but he can get emotionally-involved in articles and lose his cool occasionally. If you have any serious problems you can't handle please don't hesitate to get in touch, but I'm sure the current respectful and mature debate on the talk page is the correct way to approach this. TimVickers 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * You didn't see the small print at the top of the page? ~ trialsanderrors 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems a well intentioned, good faith kind of an oversight. I ought to have put it in the footer rather than the header... Cheers all, Pete.Hurd 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I did not see the small print. Sorry. I just wanted to thank you for what you are doing with deletion sorting for academics and encourage you to keep at it. Delete it if you want. --Bduke 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Toberman House
Professor Hurd,

Thank you for your message and the suggestion/encouragement, but I don't know a damn thing about the subject in question oustide of Mike and Kira's support of it. --CJ Marsicano 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PW Game
Pete - Sweet christ. Will this guy never give up?! I'm inclined to remove those sections, since people are likely to take them at face value. What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I suppose your right. It isn't as bad as the previous peace war game.  I'll let the folks at War decide what to do about it.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Latitude and wealth
You asked to be notified if significant changes occurred on this page. See latest version. Novickas 16:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki for Evolution and Human Behavior?
Hi Pete. I was wondering...what do you think of the idea of creating a wiki for evolution and human behavior. I'm thinking along the lines of a wiki that would focus on things like evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, dual inheritance theory, etc. Something that would detail all of the theories, hypotheses, models, researchers, programs of study, institutes, etc. in this area. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Have a good one! EPM 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Snake scales
Thanks. I'm not a contributor to the article though, I just read it and thought it was a nice article.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rogue chemists
hi Pete, nice catch with the sockpuppetry. I'd noticed the two barnstars (classy!) but hadn't reported it since neither of those accounts had logged in. I'm also keeping an eye on 80.47.144.116, who made this edit to my page. oddly enough, although both the chemists are interested in correcting "spelling and grammar", they spell "grammar" differently! best, bikeable (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * moved the following User:Curious Gregor paragraphs from my user page. Pete.Hurd 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello - You accused me of this whole "Sockpuppetry thing" - Shame on you. There is only one of me. How many are there of you. - If you look I feel I write enough stuff on my own to not need multiple ids. Sadly I am logged on through a university network and so the IP address is the same for many people.


 * I assume as you yourself are an academic you occasionally log in through your university's network and so your IP will be similar to others. Hence in the same way you accuse me I shall accuse you. - By the way - if you consider this vandalism then you yourself are a vandal. Remember that.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious Gregor (talk • contribs)

Postelsia Review
I saw the review, thank you. The pictures were found on a website that said they made the pictures, and gave no copyright or liscencing for them (I'll admit they didn't actively say "hey, use these"). As for the law, I've only seen references to such a law, never the law itself. I think that would require actually delving into the code of California law, which is not something I'm about to ecstacically hop to doing. Thank you for the good review, though. I put quite some effort into it, though I'll admit it was a little easier than I thought it would be. By the way, you should archive your talk page. You seem very popular. Werothegreat 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just emailed the owner of the site asking express permission to use the offending photographs. Hopefully, he'll reply in a couple of days.  Werothegreat 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mad kemist
Long as I'm dealing with him anyway, I'll have a look through the case and contribs. Looks like there is a good reason for suspicion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

best responce
no the article looks great nowOo7565 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Patrick De/de Meyer
Just a quick note, if you want to delete a re-direct to a non-existent page will do instead of a prod. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pelvicachromis pulcher
I was looking at the log for recently passed GA's, and noticed that this one doesn't have any review accompanying it, and that you were the one who passed it. Any reason why you didn't post a review on the talk page? When people don't actually say anything, its difficult to figure out what their reason for passing the article was. Plus, somebody could speedy delist this article at any time for being invalidly passed, since the rules in WP:GAC clearly call for a written note to be left on the talk page explaining an article's passage. Homestarmy 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. An article passes when it conforms to the criteria. There is no special reason. Reviews are only needed when articles are rejected. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:JudyWoodWhiteHat.jpg
I've already informed the uploader (User:Zarcon) that their fair use rationale and tag are both incorrect but have seen no response. (She is a living person, it is unlikely that any current images of her will be fair use.) I found a better tag to put on the image now per WP:CSD (Don't know how I missed that tag the first time.) Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 03:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing is, I'm not sure how many really are sockpuppets, if any. While many seem to be SPA's there are a lot of 9/11 conspiracy forums online. I did some Google searching to see if any were linking to the debate but turned up nothing. I found some claiming that Wikipedia is "censoring" information, but nothing within the past couple days about Judy Wood. I'm sure its being linked from somewhere, Google probably hasn't indexed the newest pages yet. I did a WHOIS on the IPs and they all turned up from different locations around the US, with some in Britain and Australia (open proxies?). If I had to guess though, I'd say someone posted on a forum that we wanted to delete Wood's article. Some of the registered (suspicious) users have some previous edits, mostly to related 9/11 articles. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 04:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Game Theory
Hi Pete. Good comment on Minds versus agents, and the fruit fly remark gave me chuckle, it is spot on. Do you have any objection to me putting the "competion" word back in? "interact" seems to downplay the role a little bit, and game theory deals with some very aggressive life or death type decisions, like fruit flys competing for food or mates ;-)
 * Knowsetfree 06:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

no (further) barnstars please

Your GA nomination of Best response
The article Best response you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Best response for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. LordHarris 11:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Pete - Thanks for letting me know about Latex fonts. I find fonts mysterious. Mostly I just look and say "dat's purdy" --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a reference
Hi! Thanks for your review earlier of Articles_for_deletion/Universal_genetic_code! I appreciate that you paid attention to the page as the discussion progressed.

Anyway, I'm currently trying to add material to Genetics (I put it up for scientific peer review, haven't heard anything, so I'm working on a draft anyway...). This is kind of yak shaving, but I wanted to add this image (on the right) and I thought the description sounded pretty specific, so I might as well find a proper reference for it. I can't seem to find a document with this graph at http://galton.org, but there's a lot there to look through. I looked at the picture info and recognized your name as the person who uploaded it. :-) Do you happen to remember the paper this came from? It would be nice, for the record, to put the reference in, although it isn't a controversial claim. Madeleine 02:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I would like to second the request for a reference for this figure. I'd like to use it in a lecture, and I want to give the appropriate reference. I can't find it in his work.

Stuedgar
Thanks! Although I noticed that my "shit is fake" discovery could have been more innocently expressed as "this is fake." But I like my way better, haha. Adam Bishop 06:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Handicap-signal-of-need.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Handicap-signal-of-need.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 03:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Epigenetics
Hi Pete. I'm very sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could have a look at something in your capacity as a Wikipedian biologist? There's a bit of a dispute going on over at epigenetics to do with the significance of epigenetic inheritance for evolution. The specific section in contention deals with the so-called philosophical implications of epigenetics. Without wanting to colour your impression of the dispute, to my mind it seems that there's an attempt to overplay the importance of epigenetics (ulterior motives are in play). Anyway, I'd be grateful if you could have a peek - to make sure I'm not waaaay off the mark if nothing else! Cheers, --Plumbago 19:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing psychology topics
I've been working with an semblance of a missing topics list related to psychology. Since I am not at all sure about all the possible synonyms and the like, I wonder if you could have a look at the list. Thank you. - Skysmith 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We share vices
Oatmeal stout and Islay whiskey, a man after my own taste buds. Cheers! TimVickers 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Am drinking my local Saint Louis Brewery oatmeal stout and fiddling with my current featured article nomination. I'm needing the sustenance! TimVickers 03:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pete vs BetacommandBot
I've had it, I quit. Pete.Hurd 08:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pete, I'm very sorry to see you go. I hope that you come back sometime, but either way, thank you for all your work here!   --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just saying "sorry to see you go, please come back" doesn't solve any of the real problems, now, does it? Same f***ing hogwash every time. People walk out for a reason, you know?! Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter L Hurd
Move done. :) DGG 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC) As for your question, I checked other pages where that user had similar problems, & yes, he does not seem to understand what research is; the view of OR is that of many uneducated people. Unfortunately, they are in the majority in WP, and some of them are positioned to cause difficulties. I've been checking the OR talk p., and SV asserts very positively a similarly uninformed view, as at so many other places & topics, & friends will back her, even those who should know better. More generally, I think formal process here does more harm than good, and is to be avoided unless forced into it by someone else, or when contending against a prejudiced mob that you know nobody will support. There is great difficulty here in talking about things which violate the orthodoxy of thinking humans are constructed & operated the way one wishes they did. (One way, adopted naturally by my postdoc advisor Allan Wilson, was having overt political positions further left than any of his critics.)
 * What I think you ought to do is simply support the statements in such as way as to answer the objections raised. For this particular one, the current qy is bias from racial differences--say explicitly what the population group was in each study. If they are all "white", is there any study of other groups? Then, find some authoritative opinion about the work in a later paper, so you can say, shown by x y and z as supported by a & b, giving not just the journals but the universities. People here don't know journals.  The thing to do about idiocy is to ignore it or work around it. Educate, yes, but that takes a while. I've watchlisted the p. I'll join in reverting, but realize I can't then act as an admin. DGG 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again, if you need assistance from an admin, just drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A favor
Pete - How familiar with poker are you? If the answer is "a little" or "barely", could I ask you to look over Texas hold 'em for me? Just let me know if there is anything that is hard to follow or unclear. If you're busy, it's no problem, I won't be offended. There have been ongoing concerns with the readability of this article, but none of us really have a good grasp of its readability by a wider audience. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pete. I'll work on the article some more, employing your comments.  They were very helpful. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Height
Thanks - I work at a University, so I can get most journal articles online anyways. But if it comes up, I'll definitely take advantage. Cheers, Wily D 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Handicap principle
Hi Pete, I was wondering if you could re-add a commented out bit with rewording to explain how the handicap principle changes the interpretation of stotting for example from a group selection POV to a selfish-gene POV. This piece of how it fits historically in the change of viewpoint is currently missing. Cheers. Shyamal 01:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I added it, hope it is in the correct location and in suitable form. Shyamal 04:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments of GAC Handicap Principle
Hi Pete,

Nice to know you are back. I saw your nomination of Handicap Principle for GA. Was going to review it myself but felt it had a some way to go, so I just left comments in a form of peer review which I hope will improve the article before someone chooses it for GA review.

Regards, AshLin 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, you had reviewed snake scales for GA in Mar 2007. I was offline for a while..I addressed your comments and resubmitted it. After due process, it passed GA. Thanks for the work you had done. Regards & best wishes, AshLin 16:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Height and Intelligence
This isn't really my field, so I'm not sure what usually is or isn't published, but do you know whether the raw data from any of these studies might be published, and where I might look for it if so? An editor has expressed a desire for a chart to give a better impression of the degree of correlation and I think he's right. Thanks, Wily D 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Contextualism
Yeah... that category is bizarre. I left a note on the category talk page. How did you stumble on that? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionarily Stable Strategy
Hi Pete, I've left some comments and did some rewriting. In these articles I've always thought that even if the body of the article is dense and technical, as long as the lead is at the kind of level that could even be understood by a bored undergraduate on a hot Friday afternoon, you'll be OK! Tim Vickers 16:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

user page
Semiprotected your user page. Shyamal 07:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ratings
Pete - Wow you really went to town last night on the ratings. Thanks a lot! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The ones I looked at looked good to me. Just having a vague list is good so we can know where to focus our efforts.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Race science
Hello! Since a merge to Scientific racism did not get consensus, and that this is a POV fork, I've submitted a second Afd request. I hope you can quickly check it out, cheers! Tazmaniacs 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

nonsense
Why do you continue to comment that I am User:A.J.1.5.2. or User:Curious Gregor, or a whole other variety of IP addresses you have listed at here? He is a different editer who happens to be colleage of mine. The only sock account I have had is for User:Iconoclast4ever, and I only used it for two days before I realised it was a policy violation. It seems that you have forgotten some of the fundamental policies of wikipedia, especially WP:AGF.

And thank you for helping in regards to Image:ChrisC.jpg, I honestly didn't realise I had licenced the image incorrectly, and tagged it as I interpreted the guidelines inthe link provided by User:Jack Merridew. R:128.40.76.3 07:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

a heads-up
re: User:R:128.40.76.3

see: User talk:Phaedriel diff --Jack Merridew 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding civility
My comment in the deletion discussion for Genderfuck cited policy and it showed how anyone can invent a new word by adding the word "fuck" at the end. I don't know why you think my comment was uncivil -- it was not personally targeted and I certainly didn't mean for it to cause greater conflict, although I may have confused an editor who is unfamiliar with WP:NOT, which I was referring to. If you think my comment was uncivil because it contained profanity or made an indecent suggestion, perhaps you should check the title of the article up for deletion again. --Pixelface 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NS
Hi, could you plese explain this edit? . NS can still be considered as a theory Walkingwithyourwhiskey 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See Evolution as theory and fact, and Objections_to_evolution. Your suggestion above, that I google "flaws+in+natural+selection" shows that you mean to equate "theory" and "not quite true", demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. Pete.Hurd 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
You deserve this. Really. And while I may not agree with your Wikiphilosophy, you are a leader in your field. And that is something. -- Shark face  217  02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, it was your Deletionism userbox that confused me. My apologies. -- Shark face  217  03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, yeah. But whatever, being a Deletionist is just a title. Just a word, really. And like any word, it doesn't fully encompass the reality of the situation nor the emotional response that comes with it. And the first half of Space warfare in fiction is the half I didn't contribute to. :-P  Shark face  217  04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pete
My dear Pete, first, allow me to tell you it's wonderful to talk to you again after these weeks, and seeing you're doing fine is a reason to be happier today. Maybe in the short future you should run for the mop yourself; with your solid experience and your excellent efforts, I'm positive you'd easily make it, and you'd be a great addition to the admin trenches. But let's leave tha for another day ;) Regarding our long known acquaintee... well, what a neverending story that seems. I'm tempted to close that AfD right away, seeing the overwhelming consensus in favor of deletion and our knowledge of the past activities that come from that account. However, I'll let the proper time run in the interest of process, and to allow more editors to voice themselves, even tho the course of action appears crystal clear to me now. Please, keep me updated on any developments that I'm not aware of, and I'll take any measures needed to put an end to this matter once and for all. Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete, see my comment to Sharon at — I will let you know if I notice anything, ahh, familiar. --Jack Merridew 13:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adam Greves
Thanks for the prompting to investigate further. The WP:DUCK test applies, indeed; editors don't just "find" orphaned media relating to a hoax. I've blocked Mark1mark2 indefinitely. Regards, — TKD::Talk 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my recent successful RfA. I have been testing my new mop a bit and Wikipedia hasn't crashed yet! Let me know if I can help you out with anything. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again!
Hi Pete! :) Well, it looks like it's a shared IP address, so the best approach for now is keeping a close eye on those contributions. If the disruption from it continues, we'll have no choice but to impose escalating blocks on it. Keep vigilant - I'll make sure to do the same. Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about evolutionary pressure
Hi Pete, I've mentioned this on Talk:Natural selection but I'm sure you would have some idea about it: Do you think rather short article on evolutionary pressure deserves a separate entry, or should it just be merged into the currently underdeveloped selection article? Richard001 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I've added merge tags to both articles. If nobody objects I'll merge it in a few days time. Richard001 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing closed AfDs from delsort pages
Pete — now that The Wubbot is removing and archiving closed AfDs, I believe it's better not to remove them manually from deletion sorting pages. That way, they'll be properly added to the associated archive after a day or so when the bot gets around to running again. So I've undone your recent removal of two of them from the academic delsort page. Hope you don't mind. —David Eppstein 04:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Corn
I'm not an expert on genetics. I copied the original image from a paper that was explaining how human intelligence might exhibit differences between groups that are not a result of the genetics of the groups even if human intelligence happens to be an inheritable trait.

The image isn't supposed to have letters on it. It's just supposed to be one type of corn in both trays and for this type corn the height is a genetic trait.

However, the environmental influences overwhelm the genetic influences resulting in a difference between the groups of corn. As has happened with human race and intelligence people then incorrectly conclude that because intelligence is probably to some extent genetic, differences between racial groups on tests for intelligence must be the result of genetic differences between the racial groups.

That was how the person who wrote the paper used the image, and that is the intended use. The height of each specific stalk of corn (that is the variations within each group) isn't supposed to have any meaning. It's just noise. The groups do not share the same environment so the differences between the groups is environmental even thought height is genetic.

Another user added the letters, so you should ask that user about what they might mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
I'll tip a bottle of oatmeal stout in your honour tonight. All the best Tim Vickers 00:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For your comment
I really think you'd help the wiki out considerably. And I think you'd use the tools well:. Let me know. Hope all is well -- Samir 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No probs Pete. Mull it over, and when you're ready, let know.  Take care -- Samir 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Punkguy182
I have just left User talk:Newyorkbrad a note about User:Punkguy182 — the latest account for User:R:128.40.76.3, so pop over and comment when you have time. --Jack Merridew 15:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done
Your !vote here is extraordinarily committed! Well done. Eusebeus 14:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The deletion has now been challenged at Deletion Review, and you may want to comment. DGG (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Section at Talk:Handicap principle
What's with the blank section on the talk page - I see you signature there and the word 'undefined' a couple of times. I assume it isn't this browser, though I saw the word appear on another page just before as well so I'm not sure. Can you tidy it up or delete? Richard001 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it might be me - I seem to be dropping 'undefined' in place of images. It might just be the computer I'm using. Richard001 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I removed them at first, but then realized I have been replacing images with 'undefined', probably because of a problem at my end. I'm going through my edits to try to fix this - some of the images at handicap principle were removed too. Richard001 06:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panocracy (2nd nomination)
Hey boss, I posted an opinion on merging panocracy with panarchy and would like to know what you think about it. Thanks. Jwiley80 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?
I guess people must have asked before but I thought I'd offer anyway. If you were interested I think you'd make a first rate admin - you're knowlegeable of how polices and processes work and your commentary on AfDs is always well thought out and researched. I think we'd all benefit from you having some extra tools. Anyway, if you did want to give RfA a go, I'd be more than willing to nominate you. WjBscribe 16:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd second that idea, I was just about to offer to nominate you myself! Tim Vickers 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I was asking is that IP page creation is going to be re-enabled on Friday (see (Link)). Its going to be an "experiment" that will last for a maximum of a month - hopefully much less. I am trying to get a few more responsible people to get the delete button to prepare for any flood of junk pages that may occur. Tim Vickers 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa
Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Got a sec?
Hi, you have more experience of assessing the notability of academic bios than I do. Could you take a look at Laurent Dailliez. He has a long publication list but the quality of secondary sources troubles me - for example the asserion that one of his works is a "a classical study of the Knights Templar" is sourced from a blurb at a site selling his book. I'm just not convinced by the sourcing of the notability assertions - unless he warrants inclusion based on the publication list alone. I'd appreciate it if you could find a moment to check out the article. WjBscribe 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get more information about Dailliez. Be patient about time and ... language. ;-) --Acer11 08:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As another obscure French author, do you know anything about Jean-Paul Roux? We have another case of such an author being used to source a very controversial Mongol-related claim, and I've never heard of him.  Any assistance appreciated, Elonka 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Henrik's RfA thanks!
Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. henrik • talk  18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another RfA Spaming
 Thank you for constructive criticism in my recent RFA which did not pass at (18/27/10). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait until someone nominates me next time. Thank you for you comments! Tiptoety 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ESS
I have replied to your comment on the talk page of Evolutionarily stable strategy. Bueller 007 14:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for your support at my RfA, despite the fact that I did not do the best job I could have done with the Game theory GAs this summer. I appreciated that a lot, and hope we will have an opportunity to work together in the future. Geometry guy 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD comments Cyrodiil
AfD's aren't the place to comment on someone's voting. I've voted - so have you - no need to argue with me. Peter1968 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, point taken. But do me a favour please - don't throw endless policies at me to reinforce your arguments. There's also one that states that if a guideline gets in the way of a good article, then igonre it. Still, I know how this place works and I'm sure you do too. Peter1968 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank-you for your participation in My RFA. I sincerely appreciate your constructive comments and concerns. I have responded to your comment and would welcome your further discussion on the subject at my talk page. JERRY talk contribs 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Pete.Hurd, there is still time to change your !vote on My RFA. I would really appreciate either further dialogue with you on your perspective, or you changing your !vote to support. It seems you drew a strong conclusion of my intentions from just my interaction with Gurch on my editor review. I wonder if there are additional evidences or reasons to be concerned? It would really be great to have a clean slate (X/0/0) at the end of My RFA, and your opinion is very important. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for taking the time to confirm your !vote at my RFA. While I would have preferred to have no neutral !votes, I do understand your point, and if my RFA suceeds, I will work especially hard at ensuring that your concerns are addressed.  I agree that the rules are meant as a guide, and that it takes bold editing and yes, sometimes the need to ignore the rules.  In fact, I'd like to leave you with a little parable to demostrate your point:
 * You find yourself on a sinking ship, and you jump into one of the lifeboats along with a complete stranger wearing a military uniform. As the boat is launched into the water, it hits a piece of debris and now has a small hole in it, and it is taking on water.  You yell to the other guy to take off his hat and shove it into the hole.  He reponds: "Protocol requires me to wear my hat at all times when in a boat."  As your lifeboat sinks you wish you had gotten into a lifeboat with an irreverant rulebreaker, instead of one who blindly follows the rules. JERRY talk contribs 12:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank Reed Horton and Ray O. Wyland
Thank you for your comments and I do intend to better reference them.Naraht (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD laugh

 * WP:SLUSH (=WP:SNOW+WP:SALT)

This made me very happy. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Wohl
If somebody would update the article to indicate that her papers and awards are more notable than what is indicated, I'll withdraw my objections. Corvus cornix talk  21:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)