User talk:TeaDrinker/Archive3

Seven for all Mankind
Thanks for reverting the changes to the Seven for All Mankind page. I suspect the person blanking the article was an employee for Seven for all Mankind, as s/he later tried to insert blocks of promotional language from the company website. I guess they didn't like my history section about the dispute b/n the original co-founders, but it's all true and documented in reputable sources. Venetianflare 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page. I blocked the IP and sock. Best regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. --TeaDrinker 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And thanks for reverting mine. Strange thought, the anon then went on to make two valid edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is curious... I wonder if it was editing testing, mutltiple users, or maybe (I say hopefully) the warning made the user feel guilty about vandalism and began a more positive path... --TeaDrinker 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ratchetman
dude no i was puting an example of laughter i shouldnt get blocked!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratchetman (talk • contribs).
 * Wikipedia is not really a place for edits like this or this. --TeaDrinker 00:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

concerning Salinger
Wikipedia NEEDS TO STOP saying that J.D. Salinger has moved to Marlow, New Hampshire. He does NOT live here and he has never lived here. We get swamped with visitors wanting to see him, three in November alone and they all come to MY vacation house for some unknown reason, probably because of some other misinformation posted about him somewhere else on the web or on Wikipedia. PLEASE STOP SPREADING THIS LIE. I absolutely WILL post his exact address and coordinates if you keep doing it and we can keep playing this game for as long as you want. For your information, I use a Starbucks Wi-Fi connection in Boston, so blocking their IP address will not accomplish much. Your call: stop spreading this nonsense and I will stop posting his real address. Your "citation needed" has not helped. Thank you.
 * Threats will get you nowhere with me, or anyone else on Wikipedia. It damages your credibility considerably to try to coerce a version you prefer, regardless of the validity.  You can also well imagine that you are not the first to try to avoid blocks by using internet cafes, and as such, Wikipedia does have tools for addressing this problem.  However, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and no one wants incorrect information in any article.  Given the credibility of the person who added the information, as well as the lack of corroborating information online, I moved the sentence to the talk page.  If you wish to add to the discussion, feel free to do so there.  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 08:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sorry about the threat, but how would you feel if you find your home invaded by people looking for somebody who doesn't live there? All three of these kids said that they found his (i.e. my) house through Wikipedia. I just found out today that I have the same last name as Salinger's latest wife, so I guess they found me that way. Again, thank you for all your help. If you could please watch the page for this sentence about Marlow, I would appreciate it. Charles O'Neil, Marlow, NH, and Boston, MA.

Addendum: Again, sorry about my confrontational attitude. After the third kid came by and asked if Salinger lives here and said that he found my house through Wikipedia (just like the other two said), I just got mad at Wikipedia and I really should have gotten mad at whoever posted the misinformation about him living in Marlow. I found Salinger rather easily: just look at the tax maps in Cornish. They not only list his exact street address, but even show an exact map to his house. These maps are public and available to anybody who asks (in person only, not by phone). I have no idea what the big deal is about him. I read his book in highschool but I forgot everything about it after my class was over. Why should anybody really care about this guy? He's just not that important anymore.
 * I can certainly understand not wanting folks to show up. Wikipedia is particularly sensitive to the biographies of living people, since the subjects themselves may find an article disagreeable.  Issues like this have occasionally made it into the news, for example John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. In the case of Salinger, he has expressed an interest (in general, not to Wikipedia specifically) to keep his privacy.  An address, which as you note may in fact be found with some effort (but is public), is not really a common part of an encyclopedia.  As such it was removed.
 * For the most part, I only monitor Salinger's page for vandalism (since he is assigned reading in many high schools, the page is also the target of many of bored high school student). I recall reading Catcher in the Rye some years ago, and recall enjoying it, but for the most part I have no expertise in his work.  I appreciate your patience in the matter, since although the Wiki in Wikipedia means "quick," we can also be stubborn (myself very much included).  Let me know if there is anything else I can help with.  --TeaDrinker 09:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Weird edit
Thanks for bringing that weird edit to my attention. Please review my explanation at my talk and add whatever you want to aid my understanding as to what happened. --hydnjo talk 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

O rly edit.
Thanks I figured it out now. let's hope he opts to keep it this time as I believe it belongs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hentai Jeff (talk • contribs).
 * Great, thanks for the work! --TeaDrinker 23:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My deletions
Thanks, maybe I was being a bit hasty, sometimes I get a carried away with the speedy deletions. Let me know if there are any more concerns. Sloverlord 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, and judging by the results (one I thought was sure to be kept was deleted, although now recreated with a more extensive description), you may have been keeping a better eye on them than me. In any event, thanks for the note and keep up the good work. --TeaDrinker 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User page
No, I don't mind you fixing my spelling. You may be, in fact, the first person to have even looked at my user page. PS - 7,000 J.D. Salinger fans are en route to your house as we speak. House of Scandal 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, your new userpage looks fantastic! --TeaDrinker 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up on my user page. --Kukini 05:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. --TeaDrinker 19:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Child Pornography
It is good that you did not find the link. It was removed from the history of the page. Child pornography is illegal and is, therefore, not allowed to be linked, even in the edit history. Cbrown1023 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, then, well done removing it. --TeaDrinker 08:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From userpage
TeaDrinker, there is a dispute about whether the Global Warming page is POV or not. That is sufficient reason for a POV tag to be placed on the article. It is improper for a user to remove a POV tag so long as a dispute is ongoing, and at least two users (JQLibet and myself) dispute the neutrality of the Global Warming article. I appreciate your threats and attempt to silence my point of view, but 3RR is what it is, and I will abide by it. But reverting one edit is not a 3RR violation. In any event, the edit I reverted was a counterfactual and improper edit, and I will continue to remove counterfactual and improper edits up to the 3RR limit.CleanHarry29201 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not a threat at all, just a note about policy which I was not sure you had seen.  I did not want to see you blocked for a rule you knew nothing about.  You are correct, reverting once is no violation of the three revert rule.  The three revert rule says revert no more than 3 times in 24 hours, except in cases of vandalism.  I am aware of the discussion on the talk page of the article.  --TeaDrinker 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the concern. Do you agree that it is improper to remove a POV tag so long as the neutrality of an article remains in dispute? CleanHarry29201 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the tag should be placed, since the matter has been discussed extensively in the past, with a consensus it was not a violation of the neutral point of view policy.  It is also a featured article, meaning a previous version of it has passed muster before a host of editors who are not regular editors of the article.  There are many articles which have political sides, and some people claim violations of npov regularly.  The only solution is extensive discussion and working out a version which is consistent with the published literature (in this case, scientific literature primarily).  I think the case should be made on the talk page before the tag is placed, since there has been so much discussion on this in the past.  --TeaDrinker 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * TeaDrinker, perhaps the word consensus has been Orwellianly redefined on the Wikipedia, but there is no consensus that the Global Warming article is neutral. I don't believe it's neutral, nor does JQLibet at least. So how is that a consensus? Of course if EVERYONE agreed that the article was neutral, removal of the POV tag would be fine. But not everyone agrees that the article is neutral. So what should be done when some dispute the neutrality of an article, if one can't post a tag that the neutrality of an article is disputed? CleanHarry29201 03:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply on your talk. --TeaDrinker 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Crticism
You have just deleted my recent contribution without any rational basis for your deletion. Have you not heard about the abuse of eugenics, and the way the ideas were taken up by Adolf Hitler? You seem to be quite unaware of the importance of criticism. It sems to me that Wikipedia should attempt to present all sides of an argument Peterrhyslewis 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with eugenics programs, I am at a loss as to how it relates to global warming. The basis for removal of the paragraph was that it was misleading.  In particular, the first part of the paragraph had examples for which there was no rational relationship with the topic of the article.  They lacked any notable proponent with regard to global warming.  The last five sentences of the selection might well be their own paragraph; they are disjointed from the first part of the paragraph.  The sentences, however, state as fact what is an opinion, and one held primarily by political partisans rather than scientists.  This opinion, however, id presented as fact.  At least one of the sentences--" In particular, current global warming ideas are based on computer models, rather than sound physical principles."--is simply incorrect.  Climate models are preciely models of physical principles, see Global climate model.  The sentence which follows it, I at least can not discern any meaning at all.  I read it as an attempt to insert a specific point of view into the article which is neither presented as, nor (in large part) representative of, notable criticism of global warming.  I removed it on this basis.  Feel free to bring it to the talk page if you would like.  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hola massacre
It appears that you may be a creator and/or a main contributor of the article Hola massacre. The article presently is up for deletion here should you desire to provide your comments to that deletion discussion. -- Jreferee 20:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I may have otherwise missed it. --TeaDrinker 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Religiosity and intelligence
The "unexplained blanking" that you reverted on this page was indeed accidental. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OinkOink (talk • contribs).
 * Thanks for the note. These things happen.  --TeaDrinker 21:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Checking into it, I see that I did not perform this blanking. Rather it was done by some anonymous user 70.45.46.22. --OinkOink 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite so, sorry for the confusion. I think yours was the last unvandalized version.  --TeaDrinker

Walrus
Please do not revert my edit to Walrus. I was linking to the correct article on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I am a professional English/Hebrew translator and a Wikipedia administrator, I think you can trust my edits. --woggly 06:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies. I was reverting other vandalism (general nonsense that walruses reach maturity at 687000 years and the like) and somehow I missed your legitimate edit.  Thanks for noting and correcting my mistake.  --TeaDrinker 07:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So I assumed. But I wanted to make sure you knew what I was up to, so you would not revert again after I repeated the edit. Looks like the Walrus page gets plenty of vandalism, who woulda figured. --woggly 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!
Okay I believe you.. I try to find out who the real sender is.. the email was teadrinker@hotmail.com so I thought it was you... Well don't worry about my message. :) --Tulikali 10:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks
do revise/add/etc to kurils. best, Eliezg 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, great work. --TeaDrinker 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hey.... sorry about that. just having a little fun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.165.10.164 (talk • contribs).
 * Please don't vandalize again. --TeaDrinker 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Stirling
I can email you some documentation if you send me your email address, earlofstirling@msn.com
 * Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, the policy Reliable sources requires references to be published information, among other criteria.  If you can give me citations to publications, I have access to a extensive library and will let you know if I have any trouble locating them.  For instance, you cite the case "European Court of Human Rights, Alexander v. United Kingdom, #23913/04" which is in regard to the establishment of heriditary rights, does this case support the claim of Earlship?  If so, it would be useful to get the full citation (volume and page number of a published legal opinion, rather than the docket number).  Thanks,--TeaDrinker 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you really want to kill some of your time you can read the ECHR case law. There have been plenty of challenges on the basis of sex and some on religion for succession and none has gone anywhere. See CIERVA OSORIO DE MOSCOVO - Spain (N° 41127/98)  Feel free to post the same to the article page if you like as it goes to the heart of the supposed 'claim'. Alci12 14:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although since Timothy Alexander was one of the parties in that case, it may have directly backed up his claim of being an Earl. I was less interested in the legal argument (which would be outside of the scope of Wikipedia to assess), and more in whether he was recognized as an Earl by the ECHR.  --TeaDrinker 18:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The documentation was Royal in nature. But if you want published material, I am listed as Chief of Clan Alexander by my main title, Earl of Stirling at http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/chiefs.htm

The person that approved the listing is the Secretary to the Standing Council of Chiefs in Scotland. I trust that this will now end this long and terrible experience and I will be so listed in Wikipedia. Thanks, Earl of Stirling
 * Last time I looked that website was not a state body capable of deciding anything or giving any such sanction. Alci12 12:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the European Court of Human Rights, it is not their role to rule on succession matters to peerages. However, the issue before them was one of human rights violations and the issue has not itself been ruled on, as the case was dropped on a tech. issue. Earl of Stirling
 * Succession is the HoL or the LC. They have not recognised you. The Spanish case which was decided was exactly the issue of the legality of succession rules. - male/female succession and it was dismissed as not being justiciable under the HRC. Alci12 12:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference. I have replied on the article talk page. --TeaDrinker 08:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Colorado River
The Colorado River page's (default) "Course" section is screwed up somehow. Clicking on the quick link takes you halfway down the page. The "edit" sign is next to the 4th picture down, which is where the "Course" quick link takes you. I've tried editing it but it doesn't work. Wondered if it was normal, a bug, or what. Thanks, --Solo 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the link from the article table of contents seems to work for me, but I don't show a section edit link (they often get pushed around by pictures). All the images right up on the top of the page may be playing with the formatting.  You may want to try moving them into sections, or removing one or more entirely (I don't think we really need all the images we can find...), if you think the article is overcrowded with pictures.  Some people also use galleries, although I tend to avoid them (just a matter of style, I guess).  Let me know if there is anything else I can help with, or if this didn't answer your question.  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Review of Live Kyle Cease show is NOT a Spam Blog!
Hey!

Quit deleting the link to the Review on Kyle Cease's Entry.

Thank You.

crazy 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. My concern, which appears to be shared by other editors (your link has been removed at least three times by three editors, including myself) is that the link to your blog appears at odds with the external links guidline.  In general you should not add links to your own site (or sites which you have affiliation with); blogs are also generally frowned upon as links.  I suggest, if you strongly believe the link does not violate external links guidlines, it may be a good idea to discuss it on the talk page before adding it back.  Sorry for the rough start editing Wikipedia, bold editing is great.  Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.  --TeaDrinker 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I guess was not familiar enough with the external link guidelines. I'll post my argument in favor the review being linked to on the talk page and allow other users to decide to edit it back in or not. I do not want to stir up anymore trouble for myself on Wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestion.

crazy 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Clement a Hoax
That might explain why I couldn't find any mention of him on Google! LOL — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, it certainly looks like a hoax. If not, it is the only non-vandalism contribution the user has made.  Nothing on imdb or appearant on google. Enough for a hoax tag, I think.  Thanks and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Did my response on the Math reference desk help you?
It's been bugging me for a day now. Did I help you, or was I just talking nonsense? Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off a bit harsh, but it's just that I love it when someone gives examples of the applications of the error function. Let me know if you attain a value to that integral! Cheers =).-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bit, I appreciate the reposne; it is a novel approach which I had not thought of. I had more or less given up on it being a tractable indefinate integral, although perhaps a bit too early.  It gives me something to try in any event; I was out of other ideas.  Thanks again, --TeaDrinker 20:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

An unfair message -NPSF3000
I recieved this message from you:

"Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --TeaDrinker 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)"

I have only undone one persons change so far, and that was because it was a change on my own. I did say I was going to change it In the talk section in somthing called 'controversial' (the botom one of the 2, cant quite remember the name) but that has now been moved elsewhere (i dont know). The change I did was only due to substantial evidence to say that on fact that theory is debated in the scientific world. I did say if anyone has wants to revert it please read a 'creation' and 'journal of creation' from answers in genisis - which was in my post which has been moved (might my post be the reason?) - I believe evolution is wrong and only after condering aguments from both sides, if you believe it is right believe so, but please dont falsify wikipedia articles. NuttyProSci-Fi3000 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Sorry for the harsh sound of the warning.  Of course, the best time for warnings is before a block is warrented.  The key is to make new users aware of the policy on the three revert rule before they have violated it.  As far as the content of your concern as to whether evolution is factual and/or broadly supposted, it is covered in the Evolution FAQ.  You can bring it up again on the talk page, if you wish (I did see your note there).  You may want to find scholarly sources which back up your claims (Answers in Genesis is not usually considered scholarly, but you can discuss that too on the article's talk page).  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS it seems that you have more vandalism in the walrus page:

"WalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrus. Walrus WILL RULE ALL YOU CANNOT STOP THEM THEY ARE THE WalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrusWalrus BOW TO THEIR POWer" NuttyProSci-Fi3000 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that. It looks like it was already reverted. --TeaDrinker 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fishes
There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of a project whose naming conventions would be affected (WikiProject Sharks), your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Neil916 (Talk) 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)