User talk:Seb az86556/archive23

Edit at Darrell Waltrip
Hi, generally when a user adds an image using a link, one should undo the edit manually and notify the user with Uw-imageuse. Just reverting isn't going to help the user as much as a notice explaining why the edit was undone and why adding images using links doesn't work. Thanks. Guoguo12 --Talk--  23:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * right. I should've. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Nice signature. Guoguo12  --Talk--  23:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I got this message too! -- Σ ☭ ★  20:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ioannedae middletonii
Good evening, Mr az86556,

While I do appreciate your reply, its brevity and tone indicate that you have not taken my words seriously. You do yourself nor your country no favours by leaving the correction of "Union Jack" to "Union Flag" undone. Our two young nations have flourished in great part because of the very protection afforded by the British Crown. Indeed, the great deal of interest in the recent Royal Wedding in the United States overwhelmingly demonstrates most citizens' love and devotion to their Monarch and her family. I take it that you live in Boston, as I fear you may well be one of those "Tea Party" Republicans I have recently read about on teh Interwebs.

May I remind you that I am a senior lecturer (a/g) at the University of Woolloomooloo, and you appear to have no qualifications at all in Life Sciences. Please listen to your elders and betters. I direct you to make the changes I require, lest you find your name mentioned at the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard/Impudence.

Yours faithfully, Dr M. Smottlethwaite. You may contact me at m.smottlethwaite@uwoolloomooloo.edu.au, should chose to so do
 * Sheesh, was that Smottlethwaite guy quick to get up on his high horse, or what? Some prissy, self-righteous, naive college professor who appears to think the American Revolution never happened. Best to ignore him, and lets just get on with editing.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert
Thanks for the revert; I'm just terribly worried now - maybe I'll take a nice nap.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: ???
The first time I added templates via huggle. Corrected Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 08:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Race, Ethnicity on Dominique Strauss-Kahn Page
My apologies, I didn't realize using the {Welcome} would cause offense, and I certainly did not intend to be warring. You deleted my comment here, and you stated: "welcome me, gee thank you; go away, stop warring." I'm interpreting this as sarcasm. Again, my apologies. My point about race stands, hence I am pasting it again here, as it is not clear to me why the race of the alleged victim should be exluded (but not e.g. her age). I hope you do not mind; I'm really perplexed about this. I wrote: Thanks for your kind note. The inclusion of race in an alleged incident of sexual violence is relevant and standard. Please see projects on WP:Racism and WP:Feminism for further background. I am shocked that any Wikipedia editor would suggest that it not be included in the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I *did*, in fact, include a comment in the Discussion page there, in which I stated: "This is relevant given the context of critiques of IMF neo-imperialism. The context is about ethnicity, racism, and the power dynamic. The alleged victim is 'black,' according to an article in SMH.com.au, which quotes AFP and a police spokesman." -- this is one of the few descriptors released by police. My comment was swept up by User:Monty845 into a {hat} that says discussion of race is 'inappropriate'. Some of the comments in that discussion are indeed inappropriate, to the extent they are prurient. But that is not an excuse to be color blind. There were no responses to my attempt at discussion there, instead my edit was reverted. I hope you have placed a similar warning on the talk page of those who reverted it. The ethnicity of the alleged victim is relevant. Further discussion can take place on the DSK Discussion page, not here, if you prefer. FatTrebla (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * article content is not discussed on user talkpgages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jbedell
Can you please take another look at User:Jbedell? I think is clearly mocking a named individual.
 * I'm on it, thanks for spotting this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Could you fill out a sock puppet report (I can't create one without an account) for  and these likely socks:, , and .  They have all been making the same vandalous edits to Sigma-Aldrich.  71.185.49.174 (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While the two mistake-raider accounts are obvious socks of each other, I find it difficult to believe someone would create socks first, then edit with the regular account. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of science
As a contributor for Criticism of science I was wondering if you would like to take a moment to review the discussion regarding a potential merge of the article over on it's talk age. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! 03:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a mere formatting-edit, but thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tiggerjay (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for teaching me a new word! M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, nice find. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your "nevermind"
So... was it a talk page I missed or...? Just curious, Lady  of  Shalott  03:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yepp :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I wonder how I did that... oh well. Thanks, Lady  of  Shalott  03:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * happens when the "do not delete my precious junk" is posted simultaneously to deletion Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, nicely put. Lady  of  Shalott  03:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks
Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)