User talk:Rocksanddirt/Archives/2007/October

Talk:Quantum biology
I had forgotten. Restored now. =) Adam Cuerden talk 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson
Attempts to have this egregious bit of puffery deleted have been stymied at every point latterly by an Admin. Would you please support the request for the AdD reinstatement at her page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fang_Aili#Ernest_Emerson_Deletion Thanks Albatross2147 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * feh. Point of view is not a reason for deletion. fix the article, put some sourced critism of Mr Emerson or his work in the article. and Please don't canvass. --Rocksanddirt 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC) - I take it that's a no then. Sorry to have bothered you. Albatross2147 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is something I don't understand: in your sentence, "Following this discussion and the users attempts to manipulate it, he was banned" what do you mean by "the users attempts to manipulate it." What does "the users" pertain to? Ferrylodge? Or someone else? Can you clarify? --Pleasantville 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnation
You are absolutely right. Edit war, yeah. And I am new here, true.

Could you please explain me, why http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation02.html is better than http://ris.eedd.cc/swammerdam.php ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efialt (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand your position. I can do nothing with the connect to the link, but if you man just looking at the text I can email you the copy.

Also I am ready to place the text somewhere else in the net, for people wouldn't be scared by RIS itself, and I thikn I can publish this text as an article. I was already promised to get in connection with J.S.

Efialt 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now a deletion debate.
Hello, Rocksanddirt. I'm alerting the editors who were involved with the Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 7#Adult-child sex (but may not know) that it is now a deletion debate. Since you were involved with the discussion for redirecting it, I felt that you may want to voice your thoughts on its deletion debate as well. I'll see you around. Flyer22 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now a deletion review
Hello again. I understand if you may be worn out on this debate, but once again I thought that you might want to know that the debate over this article is still going on. It is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks very much for your help in getting that Miller link blacklisted. I had never thought of that as a possible remedy, and I really appreciate the intervention and help. Thanks again! Best, DanielEng 02:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for RFC input
Thanks for your input on the Sixteenth Amendment RFC on the Taft address. I found another source, the American Presidency Project, so the issue is moot. Mpublius 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)