User talk:Quantumsilverfish

 

 welcome!  '''Welcome to Wikipedia! Click [show] for some tips to get started editing! →'''

below followed by your query! ☐ / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek IV FAC
I've responded to your comments, by the way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard
Hi, may I ask you to follow up with more detail on your comments here? Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact

 * This is restricted to cultural impact. Ecosystem damage or even the introductory stuff on SETI is out of place here, as is extensive discussion on the methods and means of contact, except as brief background and as relevant to the actual subject of the article.

Er, no, no it isn't. Where did you get this very strange idea? Cultural impact most definitely includes science and technology, including the impact on ecosystems. Are you working with a different definition of culture? SETI and the impact of ET on ecosystems is a cultural impact by every definition of the word, and the sources are clear on this. Has it occurred to you yet that SETI itself is a culture-bound enterprise, i.e. looking for radio signals? It sounds like you haven't read many of the sources or put much thought into this. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the only one to raise that very concern at FAC. You cannot redefine terms at will to make the irrelevant relevant. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC).

Response needed at Microsoft Security Essentials
A little reminder that you need to get back to dealing with this. You've raised some good points and yes they present the beginning of a reasonable position, but with things like this it is inevitable that the proponents that got this article to a highly dubious FA status in the first place will seek to dismiss counterarguments. 91.125.204.25 (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The right avenue...
Hello, Quantumsilverfish

I see that you have tried all the wrong avenues for addressing your concerns about Microsoft Security Essentials. I think it is time to try the right one: Talk to me. You have always escaped that.

If you do not like discussing in the article talk page (fearing similar unfavorable replies from third parties), come to my talk page. Wikipedia grants me wide latitude to keep or discard messages that are posted on my talk page.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please check the article and say what do you think of the recent changes. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)