User talk:Robin S

Most recent common ancestor
Hi. I temporarily removed most of your additions to this article. Please see Talk:Most recent common ancestor for details. Fred Hsu 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Phoberomys pattersoni
Yikes! This was indeed a mistake. Thanks for brining it to my attention... I'd never have known otherwise. I'd been doing semi-automated disambig repair, with 2 windows of Corhomo open at once; not sure how the mistake actually happened though. I'd better check over all my other difs.

Thanks again! –Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism at the Shaffer paragraph atricle. Appreciate it! =-D -- Penubag  01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Always a pleasure to be of service! Robin S 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hair of the dog
In the Hair of the dog article you requested a citation for the statement "A hangover is due partly to poisoning by the toxic chemicals into which alcohol is converted by the body and the other components of the alcoholic drink, and partly to the body's reaction to withdrawal from alcohol." You must have missed the fact that it was immediately followed by "See Hangover". The Hair of the dog article is not about hangovers, there is a separate article for that. It is that article which ought, and I suspect will, fulfill your need to understand the immediate (as opposed to long-term) physiological effects of having alcohol in the bloodstream, and then removing it. You should note that withdrawal and addiction are not the same. --Bejnar 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For example the Hangover article says "When one is drinking, the blood vessels in the face, the capillaries, will dilate, giving the person a flushed appearance. When the hangover starts, the capillaries will close up again, contributing to the headache and fatigue that is often experienced in a hangover." This means that when a person ceases to drink alcohol, the body processes out the remaining alcohol and part of the physiological changes that occur with this withdrawal of alcohol are a shrinkage of the capillaries. --Bejnar 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV terms in Israelite articles
Hello. I notice that you have had some recent discussion with user:FDuffy about the undue weight he may be giving to some aspects of Biblical scholarship (see my comment on his talk page) and archaeological hypotheses. I have started an attempt to provide minor rewordings that will reflect a more neutral position while also stating the higher criticism view, but I do not wish to do so without at least some consensus from others who have been active on these pages. For now, I am generally only inserting terms like the word "some" before phrases such as "Biblical scholars believe..." but I am looking for more suggestions to best portray these things in a more objective light. Any input would be appreciated. One option may be to revert the article to a previous version and insert a section like "Tribe of X and higher criticism," which would then include the source(s) recently cited. ◄  Zahakiel   ►  07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that following that option would be turning the article into a "debate" (according to the manual of style), which the manual considers to be a bad thing. Also, you are not meant to revert articles without good reason, and certainly not because you disagree with the presentation.

I'm a bit curious, to be honest, why you consider the academic view to be non-neutral; I'm not one to favour politicising science. --User talk:FDuffy 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied to this in the appropriate section of FDuffy's talk page. If this user has any further questions to ask me, my talk page is available for comment (this is Robin's space).  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sound of Drums
Thanks for the link to the article on British spelling; the information about the OED was particularly illuminating. BTW, congratulations on getting into Cambridge. :-) Pericles899 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Biological imperatives
It looks as though the creator, Pom-something (forgive me for forgetting if you read this Pom) really wanted to change the name of the original article (and had a decent reason for wanting to do so) It might be best to do a sort of semi-merge, and cut and paste the references from Biological imperatives to Biological imperative, then move the Biological imperative page to Biological imperatives, with a resulting redirect. Just a thought. Anarchia 08:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Goblins (webcomic)
Hi. It looks like you nominated this article for deletion by creating its 2nd nomination, but I could find no evidence that it was actually the second nomination. It was deleted by Proposed Deletion, true, but the count of AFDs only counts actual deletion debates for which a debate page (in the form of Articles for deletion/Goblins (webcomic)) is created. So, to save trouble, I moved the debate to this title and pointed links to that title. I also added it to the AFD log at WP:AFD. Please doublecheck my changes, and let me know if I screwed something up. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem - happens all the time. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Practice" vs. "Practise"
I know this is a minor point, but I noticed your reversion a few days ago of an edit by ArdClose to Moses in which the former changed "practice" to "practise". In British English, as well as the written English of most other countries excluding the USA, the correct spelling of the verb is "to practise". The Wikipedia article Practice refers to the noun rather than the verb, so is not relevant. The most Wikipedia's policy has to say on the issue is that it doesn't really matter, though I suppose you could use the same argument to say that ArdClose's edit was unnecessary. But then, so was reverting it. Robin S (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your post which I have copied above. Generally I avoid the commonwealth/USA english differences. And I do agree with you that it is a minor point. But since you brought it up, I do want to explain a bit more of my logic. Your statement that Practice refers to the noun rather than the verb is a bit invalid. It actually is a disambiguation page with links to Wiktionary as well. All of the linked articles were to the US spelling.  The Wiktionary links were basicly the same for both spellings, standard US/British variance (which I did check before reverting the edit. If the article had other noticable British usage I would have left the edit stand. But you are right that both ArdClose's edit and my revert were unnecessary. And I am not sure why I am even posting here as it is a non issue. I guess mainly to say that I am not opposed to the use of Commonwealth/British English, but I do tend to follow the "keep it consistant within a single article" train of thought; as well as, if an article has been historically written one why, then it should stay that way. But again, as you have stated, it is a minor point. Also, thanks for the link to Manual of Style (spelling), I had not noticed that one before. Dbiel (Talk) 03:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy reply. I was mostly curious to see whether there was something that I had missed, either in general policy or pertaining to this particular case; I have noticed that edits like ArdClose's (and, often, subsequent revisions) are very common, regardless of the prevailing use in the article, and am never really sure what to do about them. Robin S (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Like you, I am also unsure of how to handle the usage differences. It would be nice if Wikipedia would set up a suggested standard that could be followed as a general rule, but noting that specific article exceptions based on concensus would also exist. Dbiel (Talk) 03:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Discussion
Hello Robin!

You recently commented on the Jesus article your belief that the article should use either BC/AD or BCE/CE and not both- the discussion has started upagain on Talk:Jesus about which form should be used- your opinions are wanted! Please join the discussion. Gavin (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of mathematics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Form. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)