Revision as of 08:15, 8 November 2008

Please post new messages at the bottom of this talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. To initiate a new conversation on this page, click on this link. You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. If you're not already familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, particularly those regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, please consider carefully studying those policies before commenting here. Thanks. — Mike

Archives

Jun-2008 Jul-2008 Aug-2008 Sep-2008 Oct-2008 Nov-2008 Dec-2008 Jan-2009 Feb-2009 Mar-2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Hello, Mike Doughney, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

You've more than overdue for a welcome. Thanks for all your hard work over the last few months. We realy appreciate it.

Nice to see a sense of humour too, like in your recent edit to Teen Mania Ministries "fixed redundant redundancy". Good stuff. I hate redundancy, particularly when it is not needed.

Again, welcome!  Blarneytherinosaur talk 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

your undo of my edit to the topic heavy water

I strongly do not agree with your undo of my edit that it is off point. Before my edit, and now as you have left it with your undo, the paragraph reads that there is no evidence that heavy water reactors have been used to make weapons grade fissile material. My edit had removed that mistake and fallacy until you undid it. My edit comes primarily from the Misplaced Pages topic itself describing "Clark Laboratories" outside Ottawa. In that topic, the Misplaced Pages reads that Clark used CANDU reactors (which are heavy water reactors) and they made 250kg of fissile material for weapons. My edit also contained information on President Jimmy Carter because the Misplaced Pages topic on Jimmy Carter specifically talks about his work cleaning up Clark Laboratories. My edit provides information that is useful to the public to remove a mistake that perpetuates the untruth that civilian reactors are not linked to weapons production. Your undo is a typical obfuscation and denial of the truth. --Adoptstraycats (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no Misplaced Pages entry for "Clark Laboratories." Please provide a link to whatever article contains this assertion. If you are referring to the "Chalk River Laboratories," I have seen no evidence supporting your specific allegation that fissile materials were produced in a "civilian heavy water power reactor" in Canada of any kind (such power reactors are unsuited for the production of such materials) at Chalk River or anywhere else for that matter. There have been a number of reactors at Chalk River, research reactors which do not qualify as "civilian heavy water power reactors" which would have been used to produce such materials. Further, there has never been a CANDU reactor at Chalk River, the first reactor of that design was at the nearby Nuclear Power Demonstration site, nearly 30km away from Chalk River. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Atheism and Rick Joyner

• Hi, I saw your edit on Talk:Francis Frangipane. I responded there with a suggestion for a stub article.
• I am a (retired at age 26) mathematician and former other stuff on my user page. I am also director of the Thomas Henry Huxley and Aldous Huxley Foundation. Aldous was a Werner Heisenberg style poly-consciousness mystic (coming into vogue with the new "post human" neuroscience and "Singularity is near" stuff). Aldous was also a historian who wrote The Devils of Loudun, about ergot in the grain leading to witch hunting and "posession". T.H. ("Darwin's Bulldog") was the first person to provide a good empirical argument against the existence of classic creation-myth-God, and he coined the term agnostic (I am not one, as a strict skeptic as defined on my user page, but I was just pulled in to be director by the late charming Laura Huxley).
• If you have an interest in this stuff, perhaps you could weigh in on Wasilla Assembly of God, Thomas Muthee, and Wasilla Bible Church, or at least help monitor the articles from incessant deletions of sourced neutral facutal information, which is frequently deleted for partisan political purposes. Tautologist (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008)

Wow, you seem very sensitive about the article. My apologies. I know it is frowned upon to post personal comments. I was just shocked that such a proposal existed and never intended to start a discussion board... With that said, you didn't have to remove the comment, but w/e. Orane (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to maintain neutrality in the article on Proposition 8, but the article contains a great deal of partiality. You showed your partiality by removing my edits, which were simply quotations from the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage. That's why I put quotation marks around the copy. By deleting that information, you disinformed Misplaced Pages readers. User:wvogeler —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

Your actual edit does not in any way match your characterization of it, and without any possible justification you removed background material and citations, concluding with a blatantly biased point-of-view assessment of a future event. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, you apparently did not read the summary of my edits. I explained that my edits removed the inaccurate and biased legal history in the article and replaced it with the correct legal history as quoted by the state Supreme Court. I quoted the court verbatim, so your criticism of my edits is misdirected. You should read the decision, which I cited in my edits. The quotations are 100% accurate. If you choose not to restore my edits, you will perpetuate an inaccurate account of California's legal history on marriage and compromise the value of Misplaced Pages articles as truthful and factual. User:wvogeler —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

"Accuracy" of the quotations is not the issue. The narrative of the history, which you are deleting, with which you are apparently the sole editor to take offense, is the issue. Please discuss the deletions you are proposing on the talk page before attempting to make further edits. Deletion of material without discussion or explanation (note that I said "explanation," where I would expect to see a point by point summary, understandable to other editors, of how the current version is a "biased and inaccurate recitation," and not a simple repetition of your unsupported assertion that the current version reflects bias and must be deleted) may result in you being blocked. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

UAA Report

I've declined (and removed) the UAA report you made for User:ABCNews EH. I've noted my reason a couple of hours ago. If you wish to continue pursuing this matter, I'd recommend WP:RFCN as that is a more appropriate venue for extended discussion anyways.

Policy and process aside, I'll note again my opinion on the issue. The user clearly isn't causing any harm, and is in fact, improving content by adding encyclopedic references to our articles. Of course this conflict of interest guideline doesn't explicitly prohibit editing subjects that you are related to, but it does caution editors doing so to take extra care as to not violate other policies. I strongly feel that the user is not disrupting the project in the least. I think it is unfortunate that we are wanting to block a user, who is acting as a benefit to some articles by adding references, simply because of WP:U.

This user is trying to do all the right things - clearly stating her interests with the organization that she is affiliated with, and she even contacted the foundation ahead of time. I think we should try to assume a bit more good faith in this situation and really evaluate what the user is doing, before quickly calling for blocks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding in "(Mormon)" to the correction I did on the Proposition 8 page, I must have just blanked on that! - ђαίгснгм 05:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You edit without even trying to discuss

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:MonaVie

=regarding monavie

The article on Coca-Cola includes informations on its competition (namely Pepsi) and there hasn't been any tirant to forbid these informations ex cathedra. I haven't mentioned any specific product though. I only extended an already present thought on "more cost-effective conventional antioxidant-rich foods, such as blueberries". I don't see a reason why blueberries deserve to be mentioned but blackcurrants or bilberries don't(!). I gave more arguments on why new informations should be included in a discussion panel. If you had bothered to reply it instead of making hints and threatening, this discussion wouldn't have got "personal" in the first place. Seems like you have fun in overusing power.

prop 8

lets see was a vote taken? why yes one was so we know how most of California feels then don't we? --Mrmcuker (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment is a blatant POV comment inappropriate for the article. Stop. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, who said most people even voted? We only know how most of the voters felt. CTJF83Talk 07:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008)

Hello. Please remember the three-revert rule when editing the California Proposition 8 (2008) article. If the edit war continues, I may be forced to protect the article from editing or take other administrative action. If you have a disagreement with other editors regarding this article's content, please consider taking it to the talk page instead. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)