User talk:Wimt/Archive/Sep-2007

Way to go!
Thanks for blockin' that guy who was vandalizing Metal Gear and Mario Bros.! He has another IP, though. And an account. That, or he was just using some meatpuppetry. They edited the Metal Gear article, too. I'm gonna keep an eye on 'em. :3  Lychosis  T / C 23:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, um, User:74.134.38.24. He showed up at the Mario Bros. article right after you blocked his other IP.  Lychosis  T / C 23:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome for the block. Looks like that second IP has stopped after you gave him the final warning so I won't block right now, but I'll keep a close eye on it. Regards. Will (aka Wimt ) 00:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Altenhofen
I do not Know how to create an article before putting it on wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am very,very,very sorry for deleting that article!!!Ithought that it was just a Really BIG edit to my article!I am totally new to this and it was hard for me to find out how to make an article in the first place!!!that was the first thing i did since i created this account like half an hour ago!!!!!--Altenhofen 00:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Altenhofen" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenhofen (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page :-) Will (aka Wimt ) 01:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

owenx deleted my page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!please help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Altenhofen 01:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah he did, and he has explained to you why he did so. Please follow the advice we've given you before recreating the page so that your pages won't get deleted in the future. Will (aka Wimt ) 01:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This computor, wich is bloked, is located in the library of blair high school in blair, NE. Lots of diffrent pepole use this computor so it shoud probably be indefbloked. --205.202.240.67 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for all of your help

 * Thanks very much :-). You're very welcome to all the help! Will (aka Wimt ) 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Per user request
Asshat! --Farosdaughter 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe :D Will (aka Wimt ) 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you and showered you with WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:User:Cometstyles/smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Yay a wikilove shower :-D Thanks! Will (aka Wimt ) 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To Will
Hi, I'm that guy whom you reverted the changes of on the plutonium page.

I was not 'testing.' The fact that you actually thought I was testing shows you know absolutely nothing about the topic I was editing.

Please, before you shoot me down, check if I'm testing or messing up pages, or if I actually know what I'm talking about.

The 'overwhelming toxicity' of plutonium myth has been there for long enough and needs to be dispelled.

Far too many people are convinced that if a tiny amount was released into the air they would all die.

By the way, if you're researching using Google, a lot of web users fall under 'many people' so Google 'plutonium+toxic+not' or

something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DisgruntledMetal (talk • contribs)


 * OK I'm sorry to have branded you as "testing" if you in fact weren't. It is of course true that I am no expert specifically in the toxicity of plutonium compared with caffeine, and nor should this be surprising (although in fact to say I know nothing about the topic would be untrue). However, the statement you make is by no means an obvious one, and indeed you stated "plutonium is considered to be extremely toxic" even though this may not be the case. As such, when making such statements in articles, you should reference them so that people can see that the evidence you are using comes from reliable sources and trusted studies. This is what will dispel such a myth (assuming this is indeed a myth), rather than just writing a few sentences that, on the face of it, appear to many to be quite counterintuitive, and assuming that people will blanket accept this. Furthermore, the fact that plutonium wouldn't be deadly if released into the air, is clearly not evidence that it is less toxic that caffeine. The particular statement with regards to comparing it to caffeine would certainly need to be very well referenced, given a quick google search by me pulls up a number of different sources that cast doubt on this assertion. That's not to say it is incorrect, but it is certainly not correct to assume it is noncontroversial enough to add in as an unsourced statement. Such unsourced statements are routinely removed from Wikipedia articles on the basis that many of them are not backed up by reliable evidence and as such may be misleading. I hope this clears up to an extent why your addition of this statement to the article was removed by myself. If you have good sources to back it up, by all means add it back in and cite your evidence. Best regards. Will (aka  Wimt ) 17:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is CONSIDERED to be toxic by most - that is not proof that is so.

I did not say it was less toxic then caffeine, but in small doses it definitely isn't very toxic.

If released into the air, it would be toxic, but you would have to be very close to be affected by it.

Someone close enough would likely be injured / killed in the explosion or fire that distributed it to the air.

It is toxic, but only slightly. For example, one milligram of plutonium would cause approximately a 0.0000053 chance of developing

extra cancers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DisgruntledMetal (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree that just because it's considered something by most doesn't mean that it's correct. What it does mean though is that you need to cite all your sources when you are adding the information to the article, and make sure your sources are reliable and respected. I have no reason to doubt any of the facts you are telling me, I'm just saying you need to reference it so we can verify them. Regards. Will (aka Wimt ) 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Three months ago you reverted vandalism on my page and I want to thank you. I was taking a break two months after you reverted that edit and I was kind of busy recently. For helping me revert vandalism, I would award you with this barnstar. LADodgersAngelsfan 05:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

RAWR!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. I was just reading through your RfA, and I have one comment. :P on not getting unopposed! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe :-D. Thanks for the smile! Will (aka Wimt ) 08:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Three months ago you reverted vandalism on my page and I want to thank you. I was taking a break two months after you reverted that edit and I was kind of busy recently. For helping me revert vandalism, I would award you with this barnstar. LADodgersAngelsfan 05:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome and thanks for the barnstar! Nice to see you're back again :-) Will (aka Wimt ) 11:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Question Concerning Self-Made Images
Are self-made reconstructions of extinct animals regarded as "original research"? I have been unable to find any rules that say that they are regarded as such.--Mr Fink 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I'm probably not the best person to ask in relation to this because I'm no expert in reconstructions. However, I would probably suggest that it would seem to be original research, because even if you were able to source parts of your reconstruction, there would still be some parts that would require your conjecture. My personal advice would be to try to use non self-made reconstructions if at all possible. Regards. Will (aka Wimt ) 18:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then should we begin removing and deleting all self-made reconstructions on the grounds that they violate Wikipedia's rules against original research?--Mr Fink 01:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm I wouldn't do so on my word, given that I'm no expert in this area. I think it all comes down to the degree of conjecture any particular reconstruction has as to whether it could be deemed acceptable or too much like original research. I'm afraid I'd have to defer you to someone else with more expertise for a better answer though. Regards. Will (aka Wimt ) 01:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being upfront with you. At the moment, I am engaged in an edit war on Thylacoleo with UtherSRG. Last week, I had posted reconstructions I had drawn for Thylacoleo, Protemnodon and Procoptodon, whereupon UtherSRG reverted them all, and accused me of doing "Original Research" with my pictures, even pointing me to the policy page about Original Research. However, he refused to (and still refuses to) realize that original pictures are exempt from the original research policy, provided they aren't photomanipulations or are actually demonstrating original unpublished ideas. At first, he demanded that I provide sources that I used, then he dismissed that by alleging that he wouldn't be able to tell what part I got from my source, and which part I filled in with my imagination. I am an amateur paleo-artist who tries to draw accurate pictures of my favorite prehistoric animals, and I've been trying to improve Wikipedia's articles on prehistoric and extinct animals by providing reconstructions for about 2 years, and if people think that my reconstructions are not accurate, either I upgrade it with a newer, more accurate picture, or someone else posts a newer, more accurate picture. And as far as I know, no one else in Wikipedia thinks that my posting reconstructions is a bad idea, especially since other users have made requests for particular animals. However, I feel it is extremely unfair of UtherSRG to single me out by refusing to let me post my "original research" images in "his" articles, especially since he has made no effort to scold or force other users who routinely post reconstructions of prehistoric animals to stop posting. Can you help with this situation? I don't know what to do.--Mr Fink 02:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham meetup
Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on the page. Thanks.  Majorly  (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in a barnstar giving mood...so yeah....

 * Aww thanks so much. It means a lot :D Will (aka Wimt2 ) 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I passed my RfA, and couldn't have done it without your trust and support. Thank you very much. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Arnon Chaffin (Talk ) 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * Hehe you're welcome! Always happy to be a relayer :-) Will (aka Wimt ) 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

IRC issues
Did you have any problems with IRC when you first moved to Uni? All my other internet stuff is working but I can't connect to freenode- it just keeps timing out. Also, no radio 4 reception here, so no shipping forecast :( --Farosdaughter 11:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm that's strange. I didn't have any issues myself but I imagine it's down to what restrictions the university puts on internet connections. There must be some way of getting round it though. Have you tried using java.freenode.net or even a CGI IRC client like this one. One of those might work for the time being until you figure out how to make it work properly. Hope settling into uni is going well, and speak to you soon! Will (aka Wimt ) 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice Job


User:Sunny910910 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Quick thinking in blocking User talk:69.232.228.39‎, I never realized you were an admin until you did.--Sunny910910 (talk 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick Mercer
Guidelines are binding unless there's a specific reason to override them in a particular case; an individual editor's personal preference is not a valid reason to do so. Bearcat 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor is it an excuse to revert war with them. Will (aka Wimt ) 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If there isn't a specific and explicit reason to describe a person as homosexual rather than gay, then the guideline is binding as a policy. It does not constitute "revert warring" for an administrator to enforce a content guideline in the absence of a valid reason for the guideline to be ignored or overridden, because without that specific and explicit reason the guideline is non-negotiable. You're free to disagree if you choose, but I will brook no further discussion on this point. Bearcat 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I hold the opinion that is is not helpful to revert someone repeatedly in this instance, even if you feel that they do not have good reason to go against the guideline (which in this case I agree they do not appear to). And I certainly would disagree with construing such an action as vandalism by the other person. Whilst they may be misinformed as to the best terminology, I see no evidence that they are acting in bad faith. It would appear we may just have to agree to disagree on this though. Will (aka Wimt ) 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)