User talk:Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive

Cartoons
Hi, yes, they sure do. This page really needs protection, we can't fend off all these sockpuppets and IPs forever, but it would be preposterous to give in when the consensus is so clearly for keeping the image. Harumph. Babajobu 01:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly support it after this experience. Babajobu 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal
Thanks for cleaning up AIDS reappraisal. I reintroduced the minor link repairs I had made earlier. The Rod 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

hunt
Kim, are you on a hunt to remove all mention of Mirabello from all the wiki-world? I don't suppose you frequent the Kentuck Colonel site but not long after Mirabello was added, boom you removed him. Until the consensus is, of it the consensus ever is, that he should be deleted, then you may appropriately remove his name. Until then it is not fair for you to remove all references. stege1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.85.124.106 (talk • contribs)

chronicle
I do not mind merging the Chronicle page with the University but I put it idenpendantly because of the Duke University Chronicle student paper was the same way. In this case I will defer to you expirience on wikipedia. Should it be alone or merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stege1 (talk • contribs)

3RR
Hi, just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia has a rule on 3 revert - meaning that an editor should not revert an article more than 3 times within 24 hours. Regards, --Hurricane111 03:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Keep on reverting the article will not solve the problem.  I will suggest to both you and Axa to discuss it in the article's talk page.  (Axa also had replied to my message and I'll suggest the same thing)  Resolving disputes has great tips on resolving dispute.  If both of you cannot resolve the dispute, maybe you should seek third opinion.  Meanwhile, I hope both of you won't edit/escalate the article just to cool down a bit.  --Hurricane111 03:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

VWN en WCN
Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org. Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging vs speedy deletion
Hi Kim, I noticed you merged Belleville (Suffolk), Virginia and Atlanta (Suffolk), Virginia to Suffolk, Virginia and tagged the merged articles for speedy deletion. The usual thing to do in this case is to redirect to the merge target, especially since other articles still point to the old names. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-26 05:00Z 

Oral sex
Kim: I have posted this in the usual place. Hey, why don't we just work out a compromise. You express some desire that at least one of the three pictures remains homosexual. Considering I have proposed an alternative for only one of the three images, and it would probably reduce considerably the amount of people coming to the talk page to voice their opinions on the matter, why don't we just keep that picture? We can all drop this, and we will all walk away with something. Regionalsimp 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Regionalsimp 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR re Falkland Islands
Apologies missed the self revert there. Obv no reason to be listed. Ian3055 20:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

VIP report: Sam Spade
Hello KimvdLinde. Note that a Vandalism in progress report concerning Sam Spade, which you commented on, was moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for outside input. If you would like to comment, please see WP:AN. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 07:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sam Spade brought a mediation case to my attention, which makes this unnecessary. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Johann Fux
Hi, I've blocked the anon's two most recent IPs. I'm out of reverts, so could you attend to it again? Thanks, Markyour words 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

IP Vandal
I've googled you and have taken a look at your page to see if I know you. I'm afraid we don't know each other in real life. Though you are cute, would be happy to know you. You don't even live in the states do you? American Idol is on tonight. Do you watch it?

oh, come on now kim. first you say you know me, then you say i've added nonsense. i didn't add nonsense and you know so. this is nonsence ---> kehfjhoivgs this is not---> color. That is all. :-)

well, then, i guess 'neener neener neener' is in order. :-P but you must admit i did not add nonsense, i just did something you apparently disagree with.

can't we all just get along? the word 'color' takes up less room than 'colour' it is more streamlined. this is why we need shorter words, otherwise wiki will fill up and need to start charging for registrations. it'll be anarchy!!!

rotflmao!!!

hmmm... such a nice day. beautiful out there. too bad there are no good reality shows on tonight.

I like it when you yell at me. I bet it makes you tingle in your naughty bits. Whatever, Tomorrow, new hotel, new ip, new edits, whatever.

NatSel
why heritable and then you contradict yourself ? :( stick to phenotypic  :)  Marcosantezana 04:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

you connect to natsel-driven evolution suddenly Marcosantezana 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess traits favoured by the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. Natural selection works on the phenotype, the outward form determined by genes (the genotype) in interaction with the environment. The underlying genetic variation in traits comes from genetic processes, such as mutations and recombinations. Only heritable variations in a trait will be passed on to the next generation <-- >  here you suddently assume without having said it explicitly that there are selected phenotypes and that there is directional selection while mution selection balance would be compatible with what you wrote before -->, and the frequency of favourable heritable traits will increase in subsequent generations, gradually resulting in the evolution of new forms adapted to the environment. This is a cornerstone of modern biological and medical research. Marcosantezana

please take a look at the unit of selection article i just rewrote. may inspire you about why to stress causation dir.selection: i pointed that out only so you rephrase to avoid that your meaning leaks the intro you are writing is all about evolution by nat.sel. thata rticle already exists and i will oppose replicating it. the focus should be on selection with evolution mentioned only to explain why/how selection is imporant/works/etc best Marcosantezana 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you just left a message on the talk page that you are retreating for now. But if you look at the article, I placed your version of the introduction in the intro before you wrote your comment to Axel. Moreover, I think that there should be a way to acknowledge both your point AND Axel's in the intro. I urge you to try to work out a compromise with him. It seems to me that you and he have been engaged in a very civil discussion and that is the last thing we want people to retreat from, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting it up. I was waiting for the consensus. I have changed my last post at the talk page somewhat. --KimvdLinde 18:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The positions are so close I think it would be better if they were dealt with in the same 'Natural Selection' article. The use in modern evolutionary biology could be put forward as the primary definiton if that's what you prefer (although the original view of Darwin is arguably more important outside the world of practising evolutionary biologists). Where Darwin is mentioned in the article his use of the term must be included at that point. - Axel147 19:48, 06 March 2006 (UTC)

kim, you have a consensus of two... non-native speakers who are not evolutionary biologists and have not read the most relevant literature. gimme a break. as long as your "consensus" thing is not well-written and remains focussed on evolution rather than selection i will continue reverting. it's not about you, me, or the proud axel. it's about he subject matter. Marcosantezana 20:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

don't be ridiculous. differential reproduction includes mortality. didn't you read the cute gazelle example i kindly included for your mommie ? ;)

Natural selection
I have blocked for a WP:3RR violation. You are not far from one yourself today. I suggest that you not revert a fourth time (despite it currently being in a state you don't prefer). I hope that after Marco's block expires the conflicting parties can come to some agreement. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, I have been watching the article from afar for a little while. I hope that this block will encourage him to be more cooperative. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't abandon the page. This is an important part of our encyclopedia.  If this block does not help in keeping Marco at bay, I will begin a dispute resolution process against him.  Ultimately if he doesn't reform, WP:ArbCom will probably ban him from editing the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Parrot
Thank you Kim for keeping my comment in there even if put in a different place. You rock!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.7.154 (talk • contribs) Hi Kim, this is Mr. Arrogant, I have added more resources supporting the fact that Cockatoos are parrots on the discussion page. I hope I am adding to your talk page correctly, I didn't see anywhere else to add text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.7.154 (talk • contribs)

any changes were completely unintentional, you don't need to attempt to be so stern. you don't even know me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.7.154 (talk • contribs)

By the way, it looks like you got told by kevin earlier today (see article above). I think you are just angry at this and taking it out on my. You should learn some anger management techniques. Hey I am at a hotel. Tomorrow I will be at a new hotel.

You are wrong. it was unintentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.7.154 (talk • contribs)

Kim, in the spirit of helpfulness and positive contributions I want to help you with your english. There were a couple recent misspellings by you "practise, annonynious, editr." I would like to take this opportunity to help increase your english proficiency. I hope you find this helpful. THe correct spellings are actually "practice, anonymous, and editor." I hope you find this helpful. No need to thank me. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by  72.255.7.154 (talk • contribs)

Oh, just one more for you. middel is actually spelled 'middle.' Hope this helps. Have a glorious day!

References on natural selection
Hi, you asked about references for points I made in thinking about natural selection. Can you edit that document and add after every statement you would like supported by a reference? I'll have to then dig them up from somewhere, might take some time...

Thanks,

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/[[Natural selection]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Let it be
Take a step away from the Wikiethics page. Resid will continue to push his iwn version, he equates his POV with consensus. The page as it stands now has IMHO no change in even getting a substantial minority of votes. Spend your time on better things. KimvdLinde 13:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I'm okay really. He's been blocked many times for this in the past and it's probably worth pursuing him just a little further on his behaviour this time. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom request
I have added my two cents to the RfArb. It will be interesting to see how marco responds. Perhaps this will get him to engage in some discussion. Keep me informed, and feel free to ask if you need anything. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions
Thanks for your message. I had looked at the dispute briefly. I find that I can't read talk pages like that for very long at one sitting. It is pretty clear that the language for the Introduction (either version) is so butchered that nothing looks right. I'll try to plow my way through the rhetoric of the Talk page. Ted 21:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm playing around with different definitions on Ted's Natural selection sandbox. Ted 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

While you have resigned from the Natural Selection page, would you look at the current definition in my sandbox? How far is that from what you felt was correct? Thanks. Ted 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Year links in taxoboxes
Please weigh in on this subject here. - UtherSRG (talk)

Not overwhelming
Is there a better word to use. In the ID article, "overwhelming" (def: So strong as to be irresistible) is too weasely. You reverted my "substantial". Is there a better word? rossnixon 02:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

your resignation from natural selection
the page has been on my watchlist but I haven't paid much attention lately until your resign caught my eye. I checke the first sentence and was shocked. I don't have time to check all the history on it, so I was hoping you could tell me who wrote it. thanks Mccready 06:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to see you go. I wish I could do something to change your mind. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Stick in there pleaseGleng 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi, sorry I missed your comment on my talk page earlier. The correction of the links to Nazism is complete, but I would still be interested to know where you saw the edit summary, that idn't have a Nazi/Nazism link. Thanks Rich  Farmbrough 11:32 27  March 2006 (UTC).

Coral
Thanks for your comment on my subpage for coral. I'd not changed anything besides the anatomy section, and after extensive rewriting I've added it to the article without reverting your additions. The article still needs alot of work but is a subject that really should have a good article, if you get time your input would be greatly appreciated. |→ Spaully°τ 18:12, 30 March 2006 (GMT)


 * Having done some more editing of this article I think that Anthozoa should really be split out due to the anemonies. Otherwise the coral article has to discuss these also, when it should focus on soft and stony corals.  I've tried to change the anthozoa page so it incorporates more about the anemonies, but that needs more work which I might eventually get round to. |→ Spaully°τ 00:09, 31 March 2006 (GMT)

Hi Kim, I like you're contributions; if ever you'dlike me to help with the English editing (without changing content) drop me a message, I'll be happy to help; it's something I can do quicklyGleng 09:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

rose-ringed parakeet
hi, i have also been working on the rose-ringed parakeet. thanks for enhancing the article but the rose-ringed parakeet is more commonly known as the "ringnecked parakeet" than "rose-ringed parakeet". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdeditor (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, it is Birdeditor again on Rose-ringed Parakeet. I wanted to inform you that I am changing the name of the Rose-ringed Parakeet article to the "Ringnecked Parakeet" because after a good deal of surfing over the internet I found out that the Rose-ringed Parakeet is more commonly known as the Ringnecked Parakeet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdeditor (talk • contribs)
 * Ok fine, here's my piece of evidence: type "ringnecked parakeet" or "ringneck parakeet" on Google. I could have secretly changed the article's name without telling any user but I did so because some users frequently undo my changes (which are derived from some of the finest sources on Ringnecked parakeets) without realizing how much time I spent on that work. And here is the evidence of my content's quality: I have been researching on Ringnecked Parakeets for nearly 3 months till now, and I have also previously had experience with keeping Ringnecked parakeets. Thanx, it is a good thing that some user asks me for evidence of my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdeditor (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, I received your message. I get what you mean and it is a really wise advice. Yes, I became a Wikipedia editor some months ago, and I will try not to forget to sign myself. Firstly, I want to find some way to tell all users not to change the page's content. Secondly, I also understand that I need some better way to convince users that the "Ringnecked Parakeet" is the more proper name of this species.
 * The purpose of my work is to bring Ringnecked Parakeet lovers to a fine Ringnecked Parakeet source on the internet. I have been researching for so long (so long that now I forgot how long before did I start the research) on the Ringnecked Parakeet and I know how hard it is to find a good reliable source between all the disarray of information on the internet.
 * As far as my months-long reserach went, more people knew the P. krameri by the name of the Ringnecked Parakeet than the Rose-ringed Parakeet. Rose-ringed Parakeet is a wholly right and acceptable name of the P.krameri, but the name Ringnecked Parakeet will attract more people to the source, that's my point. I have no problem at all with anybody enhancing or adding any content to the page, but I dont want MY content to be REMOVED. hope that explains something. Birdeditor 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked out the links and it is gonna be really hard fixing them all up. I just want to know that when the page opens up from the links, will the page just display the previous name (which is "Rose-ringed Parakeet") or will the page display the whole previous content (which would mean the edited content would be nowhere to be seen). Being a less-experienced user i am a bit confused with what am I supposed to do with those links. thanks a helpful reply will be appreciated. Birdeditor 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * i tried to remove all "direct-to-reader" references from my Ringnecked Parakeet article. i m struggling with the Ringnecked Parakeet links, what and where are links, i need extensive info. if anybody fixes the links their help will be greatly appreciated. Birdeditor 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * i did as you said: go to the "what links here" toolbar, choose an article that has the previous name and then correct the name to the new one. however, i had just started off with a couple or three and so far all of them described the "Ringnecked Parakeet" as "Ring-necked Parakeet". i mean what big difference would a dash cause. however i understand that in some places the name can also be "Rose-ringed Parakeet" and it needs to be edited. by the way, this thought came across my mind: if the "rose-ringed parakeet"/"ring-necked parakeet" link on any article redirects to the "ringnecked parakeet article" whats the point of changing the name (of the parakeet) on the article that has the link. when the article redirects to the ringnecked parakeet page the first thing the reader will know will be that the Ringnecked Parakeet is ALSO known as the Rose-ringed Parakeet. however i believe that the name "ringnecked parakeet" will draw more people towards it. the links-editing can take really long, i should have seriously considered it before.
 * I think the issue of this particular bird's name has been discussed before at WP:TOL. Why don,t you try asking the question at their discussion board? Circeus 03:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've restored Rose-ringed, and fixed all the links!. The parrot/cockatoo etc is a controversy too far for me! jimfbleak 06:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * i posted my message on the Rose-ringed Parakeet talk page. Birdeditor 23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ecolog-L
Funny seeing you pop up on ecolog. Cool looking drosophilid, btw. Sounds like it would be really cool to catch an incipient invasion. Guettarda 20:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your small-font comment on Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality
I know it's hard not to be snarky with him (god knows I've had to restrain myself dozens of times, and I still haven't wholly succeeded sometimes), especially when he's just attempted to insult you, but beware of personal attacks. Your reply was just as bad as his initial comment (not that either of them were terrible, but this has gotten heated enough in the past that we should all be particularly careful to be civil).

Good to see fresh blood at this article, by the way -- nice to know that more reasonable people will keep coming in as Lou tires older editors out. ;) Hbackman 05:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you actually dyslexic? If not I've just inadvertantly attacked you at the RFAR case, so I'd appreciate knowing :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-). It was good of you to try and prevent this from escalating. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting Rose-ringed Parakeet
It's a pleasure! (Actually an addiction.) &mdash;JerryFriedman 17:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Marco arbitration
Hi Kim, thanks for your comment. I'm only recently getting more active on Wikipedia (to the detriment of nearly everything else in my life, of course... but when there are evolutionary biology pages so atrociously bad, what else can I do?), so I apologize if I have stuck my head into a matter whose scope is far beyond me. I added my comments to Marco's arbitration case because I had a different kind of experience (however frustrating) than you all seemed to be having. He had not acted uncivil towards me, though we did go back and forth on some edits, now apparently settling on an edit that to me seems more readable. I do recognize that he has been uncivil towards others in other circumstances, and I certainly understand your reaction. I hope that in the future you can rejoin the effort at Unit of selection, along with the surrounding topics (such as Group selection and Gene-centered view of evolution), all of which need serious work and consensus from people like yourself who can clearly express themselves. Safay 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom
Beats the hell out of me. The last case I was involved with took forever. In that case, they issued a temporary injunction, and then waited a long time to act. Since then ArbCom has grown and they have added "clerks", which was supposed to speed things up... Looking at their list, it looks like we might have to wait a while. My general impression is that things are probably not so bad that they will issue a temporary injunction. The one redeeming feature, is that since M isn't defending himself, the case should be pretty easy to decide. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Blue and yellow macaw
wow! that's really embarrassing! thank you for pointing that out. looks like i was misinformed by some travel guides. -- preschooler @  heart   my talk  -  contribs  04:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a question
May I ask you why do you oppose so much to the british in the talk page of the F. Islands Article, if you aren't argentine, or even spanish or latinamerican? Argentino (Talk cont.) 15:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thinking a bit, it is the first time I see a european (exept italians or spanishs) that isn't on UK's side, it makes me feel good.--Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Incertae sedis
Hi, I noticed your change to List of Florida birds, and while I'm not disputing the change. Since I debated on the way to present the phrase, I would like, for my own edification, more clarification. I took the phrasing Genus Incertae sedis directly from the AOU checklist (here). I understood the phrase to mean that the entire genus had an uncertain placement. In this cases of course the entire genus is just one species, the Banaquit (Coereba flaveola). Is my understanding skewed, or is the AOU using a different convention than you, or is something else going on. I should mention that I am not a biologist, just an interested amateur. Dsmdgold 18:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, and you right the AOU's wording is could be misconstrued. I think with the current wording and the additions you have made to the family description, the situation is as clear as it can be. Dsmdgold 21:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Budgerigar article
It appears we think alike: I started making some major changes to Budgerigar today as well. I have put them on my user subpage User:Ginkgo100/WiP01. Please do take a look at it; I would love to work together on this project. Besides rearranging the images (I chose the same one for the taxobox that you chose), I actually eliminated much of the information on captive and domesticated budgerigars as non-encyclopedic. What do you think? Ginkgo100 03:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou
If I may offer some advice... I think you're being a little too antagonistic with him. It really will just egg him on. Maybe try and take a deep breath, don't edit war with him over something as trivial as a troll warning on the talk page (which I'm not sure is wholly warranted anyway), and try to calm down just a little before dealing with him again? I know he's annoying to handle, but getting upset and reacting to him quickly/impulsively will make matters worse, not better.

Just my two cents, take it or leave it. ;)

Hbackman 01:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Troll tag
... and he just earned another 3RR. I'm writing it up now. Cleduc 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bold genus names
Consider it done. If I happen across any more I shall change them too. Dysmorodrepanis 15:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC) - ADDENDUM: Good timing too. I was going to add a considerable number of taxoboxes today! Thanks again.

evidence
It is people like you that ruin wikipedia, You probally never even gave my edit a second look did you? and there is no need to reply to me I won't be back. 69.179.102.230 19:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming an article
Your post in village pump askes the question of how to correct the spelling of a title, which I presume means the article name. Just click on the "move" tab (beside "edit this page" and "history"). EncMstr 21:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry.  I clicked too fast—but not fast enough to keep up with Village pump...   EncMstr 21:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Help
I see you reverted the blanking made by User:OneEuropeanHeart. I thank you for this, and would like to extend an invitation to join the discussions currently going on due to other deletions and blankings of said user. It has been going of for quite some time. When rectified he goes on to report 3RR on those fixing his vandalism. Please see my talk page, Talk:Argentina, Talk:Demographics of Argentina, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and a previous unreverted edition of his talk page. Al-Andalus 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Accidental tawkerbot reversal
Your recent edit to Horses in sport was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 03:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What happened was your redirect had a space before it, so the redirect wouldn't work and it triggered the bot which did the auto revert, I've fixed it for you -- Tawker 03:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag revert
Please note that all of those pages were protected by Voice of All, making your tag reversion an edit of protected pages. Please be so kind as to put them back so as not to further aggravate the controversy. Phil Sandifer 05:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Humm, I can not edit protected pages.... KimvdLinde 05:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like the protecion was badly declared/applied. Regardless, the dispute exists, and is now described in detail on the page - it would be a useful show of good faith to add the tags while the discussion is taking place, so as to dispell the image that the articles are controlled by a set of people with a strong POV who are capable of and willing to shout down all opposition. Phil Sandifer 05:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have not (yet!) a particular opinion about the articles. Second of all, when I looked at the page for arguments for the POV tag, they were missing, otherwise than some raving about blogosfeer and undue weight without any clarification. Then you jump on my back accusing me that I edited protected pages, which I had not (only the Ohio page is protected!). Now you request me to reinsert them based on as to dispell the image that the articles are controlled by a set of people with a strong POV who are capable of and willing to shout down all opposition. I find that a nice example of bad faith. Sorry, that are not arguments I am falling for. KimvdLinde 06:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Numbering tables
The problem with manually numbering lists of bridges is that new bridges are constructed all the time. There are several long bridges that are under constructions that will force a renumbering of the entire list. Your method, while a little less confusing, takes more work to maintain. Are you willing to take on maintaining the re-numbering whenever someone adds a missing bridge? I'm not sure it is worth the effort. -- Samuel Wantman 07:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarity and conciseness
I included my responses to Hollow are the Ori here as s/he removed them from the talk page. KimvdLinde 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Posted at User_talk:Hollow are the Ori under: == Misuse of tags ==

Clarity and conciseness are not NPOV issues, just bad editing. In that case, I think tags as cleanup etc are better suited. KimvdLinde 17:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The {NPOV-because} template doesn't mention NPOV at all, it just states that the article is disputed which is true. Also, the cleanup tags don't convey exactly what I interpret to be in need of cleanup unless there is a {cleanup-because} template I am unaware of? My interpretation of the article's current quality is better classified as a dispute than as something needing generic cleanup. Hollow are the Ori 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV is for Neutral Point of View disputes, bascially that the article is onesided highlighting a specific POV, and what you indicate is not a NPOV dispute. It suggests a dispute that is not there. KimvdLinde 19:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First you claimed the NPOV-because template shouldn't be used to indicate a dispute because the cleanup tag would be more appropriate, then when I add a cleanup tag to the same fundamentally disputed article you claim there isn't a dispute, does not make sense. It seems like you are attempting to downplay and obviate the existence of a dispute over the Scientific method article. Hollow are the Ori 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not removed that tag. KimvdLinde 19:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true you did not remove the template but you seemingly tag teamed with the people that did and you are obviously contradictory in your position. Hollow are the Ori 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be carefull with accusations. And no, I did not change my position. I think there is no NPOV discussion ongoing. I have not expressed whether I think the page needs cleanup. KimvdLinde 19:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly your following statement is meant to at least hint at the use of a cleanup tag: "In that case, I think tags as cleanup etc are better suited". Your denial does not escape you from your contradiction. Hollow are the Ori 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two things. One is the use of the proper tags for the dispute that you are having, and for that dispute, cleanup tags are better. The second is whether I agree with your assesment that the page needs cleanup, which I just indicated that I have not expressed at all. To add to it, no, I would not ahve remoevd a cleanup tag. KimvdLinde 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But you acquiesced to the cleanup tags' removal after encouraging a change away from the POV-because tag so you were definitely involved. I interpret, perhaps inadvertent, complicity. Hollow are the Ori 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you do not try to insert things into people motivations that they do not have just because they are not saying exactly what you want to hear. The way you accuse me of teaming up will work contra-productive in the long run. I assume good faith, and I sggest you try to assume good faith as well. People here are generally very willing to discuss, consider etc arguments brought forward by others, but that willingness will generally reduce very quickly when you start with accusations and speculations about the hidden motivations of editors. It is your choice how bumpy your wikipedia ride is going to be. KimvdLinde 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not "inserting things into people's motivations" as you claim, I am merely communicating my interpretation of your actions. Feel free to disagree. "Assume good faith" is an inappropriately named policy because people should never assume anything, a more appropriate name is "give the benefit of the doubt when reasonable, but don't stop doubting". It's quite interesting there were multiple accounts all at the same time seemingly singularly focused, in different ways and to different degrees, in mischaracterizing or obfuscating changes to the Scientific method article. Hollow are the Ori 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then let me say it this way. Your interpretation of my actions is incorrect. KimvdLinde 21:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome :) This reminds me about getting an account. It's about time.

And now I've done it. Almost too easy. Am I lazy or what? Uncas 03:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

natural selection, please
Please work with User:Gleng today to put the article into a form the two of you accept. I will then protect it to prevent any vandalism. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein" I've taken a look at this again, and can't see a quick fix. It's a major rethink and rewrite that's needed. There are 3 classes of problems that I see with the article, 1) specific errors To take just one example, "Population and evolutionary geneticists agree that most new mutations are deleterious." Well no, this is not true unless you're talking only about changes in protein coding regions, and most mutations aren't in these regions. Most mutations are not overtly deleterious or advantageous, but are "neutral". But they may affect the timing or degree of protein expression, or exactly where it is expressed, or exactly how its expression is regulated. Now my point here might seem pedantic, but it's not - the accumulation of neutral mutations over time, each of which has little overt consequences, can provide the raw material for rapid evolutionary change through natural selection when changing environmental conditions give significance to previously minor, unimportant differences.

2) the article is Darwin-centric. Now I think that Darwin was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. But to elevate him to the status of guru is dangerous - it makes natural selection and evolution look as dogmatic and religious as the alternatives, and it traps the article into following his mistakes and blind alleys too. I'd rather see Darwin stripped from this article almost completely.

3)the writing uses jargon to give a false authority to dogmatic statements - it's obscure where it most needs to be clean precise and logical. It needs to be built up carefully with clear explanation, a logical structure, and careful referencing. I think it is so important to draw as clear a contrast as possible between how scientists argue their cases and how pseudoscientists do, for this article almost more than any other.

I think that this is what Kim wants to try to achieve, and I'll be pleased to help when I can find time, and maybe the sandbox that Kim has set up is a place to develop and eventually seek consensus to replace the whole article. It could be a frustrating diversion to try to fix this article without a fully developed alternative.Gleng 12:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't be in again until Tuesday. At that time, if it is being vandalized, I will protect it.  It is crucial though that there be a pre-vandalized version to protect at that time,Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

New opinion poll
Hi. You took previously part in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy. There is a new quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated! See Thx, -jkb- 10:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks

P.S. By the way, if you see the blog and there the article  Fašisté na en:, so you will find your name in the List of fascists. Added about one hour ago. -jkb- 11:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou franklin Arbitration ruling
Could you move the notice of the arbitration ruling to the bottom of Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality as if it's a 'normal' comment? Putting it at the top looks a bit like we've got Lou's head stuck on a pike, which we don't want. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... judging by the notice Johnleemk has put on the top of Talk:SATH, sticking heads on pikes is actually part of the process. Oh well, sorry to make you do something that wasn't necessary :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but I'm still kind of ambivalent about it. On the one hand, in case Lou starts editing the article again - possibly months or, theoretically, even years from now, editors need to be aware of the ArbCom ruling and they might not even know it exists otherwise. On the other... it's a big notice, it's going to be up there forever, and most editors won't be concerned with it. I guess in the end it's a necessary evil. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nat Sel
Hi Kim, I've done some copy editing on your page, mainly for fluency, and inserted a few minor things that seemed worth keeping from Talk history etc. Kick everything you don't like without hesitation. Gleng 13:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC) see User talk:KimvdLinde/Natural selectionGleng 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Tightening up the expertise page
Hello there. I like the idea of this page about expert contributions, but really, while to go from Experts are encouraged to identify themselves to Experts can identify themselves is indeed tightening in the sense of saving syllables and bytes, the result is so mild as to be near meaningless. (Yes of course they can do this -- what might have suggested otherwise?) Meanwhile, here's a suggestion for substantive tightening up.

Yours for less crap and more expertise on WP, Hoary 08:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

natural selection, May 8
I am concerned with Marcos mucking this up some more, though I think there is an injunction against him now. I will protect the page if necessary - but do not want to do so if there is more work you want to do on it. Please let me know when it is in what you consider a satisfactory state. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can protect it before Marcos gets to it again. I just do not want to protect it when there are still some (even if obvious) changes you want to make.  Steve


 * When you are done (for now, meaning this evening) let me know i.e. give me the time-stamp. I just want to make sure that if Marcos starts mucking around again, I revert back to whatever you considered the acceptable version, that's all. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JPMCC fix
Actually, User:Raphael1's edits haven't yet been restored. Looking from the talk page it doesn't seem clear that they should be restored. If you think they should be... then by all means. Netscott 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You hadn't quite fixed it. But I actually was reverting while you were restoring his edit. Netscott 17:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well allrighty then, we'll see how Azate and he work it out. Thanks for continuing to be a part of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy surveillance team. ;-) Netscott 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry :(
Didn't realise - not cool. Pretty impressive that that's the first typo of yours I've noticed. Guettarda 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous horses
Are you sure that you want to start that list? It will attract fancruft and vandalism. --John Nagle 21:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

plop
You are adorable. I love your edit comments. Cleduc 04:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop Removing My Contibution
Please stop removing my "Nanook" contribution from the wolf page. It is a true fact. 216.164.203.90 05:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true and I will be placing it back on. If you remove it again you will be blocked!!!! 216.164.203.90 05:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, why do you consider yourself qualified to post when you cant even spell nonsense it's "N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E." 216.164.203.90 05:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, "Please Stop Removing my Posts!" 216.164.203.90 05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I feel you are not qualified to edit Wikipedia, just look at your spelling, "Not as lomng as you are vandalizing the page with adding nonsense. Copnsider to add some real stuff" If english is a forign language to you excuse me, although you could try using a Wikipedia site for different languages. I am sorry to say but I will have to repost "yet again." 216.164.203.90 05:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
You're quite welcome. Perhaps the tools will come your way someday. Happy editing! Radio Kirk   talk to me  05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update. :) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  17:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Gray wolf
Agreed. I'm happy to revert each and every time. --cholmes75 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)