Revision as of 18:57, 5 November 2005 editNoelWalley (talk | contribs)2,501 edits →L Class← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:38, 5 November 2005 edit undoRandom account 47 (talk | contribs)2,175 edits Request For Arbitration SummonsNext edit → | ||
Line 380: | Line 380: | ||
I rediscovered the print (given to me nearly 60 years ago by the photographer's nephew) two days ago when looking for something else. | I rediscovered the print (given to me nearly 60 years ago by the photographer's nephew) two days ago when looking for something else. | ||
You are welcome to a copy. ] 18:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | You are welcome to a copy. ] 18:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
= Request for Arbitration = | |||
You have been summoned to appear as defendant at a Request for Abritation. Please vist the ] page to make your statement under the heading ]. --] 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:38, 5 November 2005
Misplaced Pages:Babel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Search user languages |
At page load, it was -- T in UTC
(see W3C Date and Time Formats)
Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
|
Archives
Archives of old discussions: One / Two / Three / Four / Five/ Six / Seven / Eight
WP:CIVIL
Per WP:CIVIL I respectfully request that you refrain from describing other editors' good-faith contributions as "crap" . Kappa 15:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- If I may, I would like to second Kappa's request. You have been extremely unfriendly towards me and made unwarranted attacks against me. Please stop. Bahn Mi 19:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't suppose I was referring to your particular cruft, but your contributions fall into the pointless steaming pile of crap category. Dunc|☺ 19:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is my third request now. Please stop making personal attacks against me and make a concerted effort to be civil to all other Wikipedians. If you do not believe a school (or all schools) to be important then you are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not give you the right to harass others. Bahn Mi 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is my fourth and final request asking that you attempt to use civility and refrain from describing other editor's contributions as "crap". Your attitude here towards others you disagree with is reprehensible. Bahn Mi 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is my third request now. Please stop making personal attacks against me and make a concerted effort to be civil to all other Wikipedians. If you do not believe a school (or all schools) to be important then you are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not give you the right to harass others. Bahn Mi 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't suppose I was referring to your particular cruft, but your contributions fall into the pointless steaming pile of crap category. Dunc|☺ 19:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar
For pulling no punches and never resting in the fight against insignificant and non-notable schools in Misplaced Pages, and for standing up to an organized, group that taunts and harasses those who disagree, I award you the Defender of the Wiki barnstar. Warmest regards --Neutrality 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I
Hi Duncharris. I see that you merged GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I to GWR 6000 Class without going via the AfD process - can I ask why this was? It could well be that the result of the AfD discussion would have been merge or delete anyway, but is this not a more democratic way of going about things? Regards, CLW 18:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am also less than happy about those changes and believe that AfD would have been the correct way to resolve a disagreement chowells 20:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Further to chowells's comment, I'll revert the merge and nominate the article for deletion myself. Then if it goes, it will be through concensus rather than a unilateral decision. CLW 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason to use Afd for this. If it's a merge you're discussing, why not talk about it on the talk page? IMO, Afd is not desirable or neccessary in order to decide on a merge. Friday (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please note that it's not just this page at stake, there are quite a few similar pages on preserved locos that were turned into redirects because User:Duncharis didn't consider them to be notable enough chowells 21:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason to use Afd for this. If it's a merge you're discussing, why not talk about it on the talk page? IMO, Afd is not desirable or neccessary in order to decide on a merge. Friday (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Further to chowells's comment, I'll revert the merge and nominate the article for deletion myself. Then if it goes, it will be through concensus rather than a unilateral decision. CLW 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
That was really an ugly thing you did
I've been steadily working on Human for nearly a year now. this is what it looked like before I started. It has come a long way, and I was feeling rather proud of what might end up a featured article. Your comments were therefore quite possibly the rudest experience I have had on the wikipedia. I used to have respect for you, and I hope I will again someday. Sam Spade 20:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
A Lost Cause
Dunc, I am in full agreement with you about the notability of schools in general. Some high schools, maybe, should be kept. It seems unlikely that any elementary school could possibly be worthy of an article in the Misplaced Pages. However, I think trying to delete schools is a lost cause. I have quit voting on AFD articles for schools. There are just too many school-inclusionists to battle against and it does not seem likely that we could prevail. I think our time could be better spent elsewhere. I am, however, still going to vote vigorously against garage bands. Keep the faith. ♠DanMS 04:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Civility request
Please do not describe me with phrases like ought to know better. Uncle Ed 22:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well you are being a very silly. That's no way for a bureaucrat to behave. And anyway, you ought to be able to take it. Dunc|☺ 23:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- dunc why does everyone keep asking you to be kinder to people yet you do not do it that is not nice Yuckfoo 03:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. They should grow thicker skins or not go around POV pushing if they are a bureaucrat! Dunc|☺ 10:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- dunc why does everyone keep asking you to be kinder to people yet you do not do it that is not nice Yuckfoo 03:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, thanks for making the point that members who are trusted with bureaucrat rights should be held to a higher standard, but I resigned my bureaucrat rights last month. And thanks for changing "ought to know better" to "being ... silly". Uncle Ed 17:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
About Ed
I thought it best to open up rather brusquely, given his judicious patina of praising "objectivity," only to insert usual Creationist smug b.s.
I doubt I can be made to engage him further, directly, in any way. Good or grumpy, I couldn't care less, but my feelings are said (and Ed warned).
As for the work itself, my feelings are entirely beside the point: my pride will be in helping to mold a well-written, accurate article, whatever the outcome of the case itself.
Your comment wass reasonable and appreciated. --- TCoL49
Falklands
Your protection of that page was a clear abuse of power, especially since you continued editing it afterwards.
The edits were not vandalism and, while I didn't agree with them, we need to give the talk page a chance before starting dictatorial acts like the one you just did. The protection of a page should be a last resort against vandalism, not a way of avoiding other writers to express their own ideas.
--Sebastian Kessel 15:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- The only edit I made was to copyedit one sentence. There was a revert war going on, against consensus on the talk page. I've unprotected it now so it can start again. Dunc|☺ 19:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- True, but you made edits nonetheless... you shouldn't have done it, even if it policy was on your side. Would've been smarter to express your opinion on WP:ANI, since discussions were being held and a 24hr protection was proposed. --Sebastian Kessel 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
There was a content dispute, which you were a participant in, but you treated edits you disagreed with as vandalism, by use of the rollback to your preferred version, and by the caption you chose in protecting on that version. Duncharris, I really object to being treated as a vandal. I encourage you to read the comments by other editors on WP:AN/I regarding this. Jonathunder 01:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Responding here to what you said on WP:AN/I. Thank you, Dunc, for what you said. I share your desire to move on and focus on improving the article. You said there is a consensus "to use the English, with the Spanish mentioned quite soon afterwards." I would note that the article does not in fact do that now. You and another editor reverted to a version which has "Islas Malvinas" only quite a bit into the article. Let's find a way to fix that that we can agree on. I'm afraid I can't agree the name Puerto Argentino should not be mentioned anywhere. You said the motive for the name was nationalism, and that may well be. There may be nationalism on both sides. But the NPOV way is to report both sides without adopting either, isn't it? Jonathunder 02:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
British invasions in Río de la Plata
Hi there. I have to tell you that I'm don't quite understand why you moved the British invasions in Río de la Plata article to South American War. The article's title was very specific, and the exact name that is used to name them, whereas the new title absolutely vague and misleading. I would like to rename the article back, but I'm ready to listen to your arguments favouring the new name. Thank you, Mariano(t/c) 09:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- There have been many wars in South America, so I consider the current title of South American War to be improper. From your answer, I guess the wisest thing to do would be to use British invasions in the River Plate, or British invasions of the River Plate( ), which has no Spanish in it. You can do the renaming yourself. Mariano(t/c) 11:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Stay sane
Stay sane, keep up the good work and don't let the vandals and trolls get to you. As far as I am concerned you are one of the most valuable members of our community. Your efforts are appreciated; on the rare occassions when I find myself not agreeing with you, I generally pause to make sure that my opinions are reasonable. Thanks for everything - Guettarda 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
My RFA
Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Need Your Vote
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chester County High School Just Look --JAranda | yeah 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Discovery Institute/CSC
Per your comment at the DI article some months back that the ID specific content largely should go in the CSC article, I've moved it over and tightened both up. I've left some of the criticisms that apply to the DI there, though they may need some pruning too. FeloniousMonk 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
My RFA
I know because of User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records. I really dont have any ego :), Im just very surprised at the support. My last RFA got 20 votes in total: 4/11/5. →Journalist >>talk<< 17:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Schools, something you may delete
Hi Dunc! Since you don't get to delete schools much I offer you a subpage of my userpage which you may delete. I worked on an article about an 852 year old school in my userspace, at User:Sjakkalle/Bergen Katedralskole, but it is no longer needed since I have moved it into the mainspace. If you want to delete something school related, you may delete that subpage. (But please keep the mainspace article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, maybe my post was a little bit trollish, but I thought I wanted to have a bit of fun. Sorry about that :-). Regarding schools, I usually abstain from such votes, and think that information on mundane schools can usually be advantageously be merged into articles on the school district or town. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I think I closed the deletion debates as "Keep (no consensus)" if you check the debate pages, although I write "decision was KEEP" in the edit summary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution
You seem to be having a difficult time excepting that not everyone shares your POV when it comes to 'science' related articles--WwJd 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please elaborate? Dunc|☺ 22:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well for one, you don't tolerate religiously motivated POV on science pages. David D. (Talk) 22:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I know, but what would Jesus do? Feed the trolls or confuse them with a parable?Dunc|☺ 22:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly correct all the wikipedia pages that do not agree with his POV ? David D. (Talk) 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- JWSTFU? JWRTFM? I dunno! — ceejayoz 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- I know, but what would Jesus do? Feed the trolls or confuse them with a parable?Dunc|☺ 22:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for trolling me to death instead of giving me a straight answer--WwJd 03:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Dunc and David, WwJd is a newbie. Please don't bite the newbies. Uncle Ed 13:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh dear, grumpy old Uncle Ed again. If the newbie had been a bit more specific I might have had the opportunity to be a little more helpful. I
exceptaccept that there are those who do not share my POV, but I need more information to what specifically the newbie is referring.
- Perhaps Jesus would tell the fable of the ape that got a little bit clever, thought he was cleverer than he was, invented things called sky fairies and then went around claiming that he was made by sky fairies because he couldn't work the reality out for himself? Dunc|☺ 14:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds more like Plato's cave to me. You know, the prisoners chained to a wall who couldn't see what was causing the shadows, and the elaborate theories they came up with. Uncle Ed 15:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Ed, Is it normal that newbies roll in with such a strong opinion? Or is this just another sock puppet trolling wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Mona_Clonal_Antibodies.3F certainly looked sockpuppety... — ceejayoz 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Can't win an argument? start with the name calling, seems common enough around these parts--WwJd 04:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
GWR King Class media
Thanks, Dunc. CLW 06:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Know anything about photosynthesis?
User Natalinasmpf is making some very strange changes to the photosynthesis article. They are in good faith but s/he seems to have quite a few misconceptions. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page but I don't think s/he will listen to my input. If you know something about this area, or know someone who does, maybe you could either join in or send them to join the discussion. I have given up reverting since Natalinasmpf reverts back immediately. Thanks for any input, David D. (Talk) 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- evolution good, genetics pretty good, ecology okay; plant physiology and biochemistry results in a lot of headscratching. I can't see anything wrong with it immediately, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Dunc|☺ 22:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
edit on pseudo-science page
Why did you revert my edits? I simply added Novelty Theory, a popular pseudo-science asnd changed the form of "Gene Ray's Timecube" which is awkward, if that one should be added it still should be referenced by it's name, not by it's creator. I reverted the Scientology back to Dianetics, if that was the issue, because I think ChrisO gave a good argument. Certainly you couldn't have had any problem with BOTH Novelty Theory being added and Time Cube being referenced by it's name? Those are issues which I would expect to be hardly controversial. --Brentt 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Related to William Darwin Fox Q&A
Hi Duncan, I didn't mean to "take-over" your good work, the intention was just to get it right. There is limited information available, and I have some that's been handed down. I'm "vaguely" related, 3rd cousin 3 times removed. Our common ancestors were Samuel Bristowe (1694-1761) and Mary Savage (1701-1791). There were some complicated family relationships around CD and WDF's period; a lot of 1st and 2nd cousin marriages. Studying the descendants reveals that many offspring from those marriages didn't or couldn't breed successfully. Some of the branches just died out.
WDF was born at Thurlston Grange, about halfway between Elvaston and Shardlow in Derbyshire, and spent the first few years of his life there before the family acquired Osmaston Hall (sometimes known as Osmaston Manor). His parents were very rich by the standards of the day, and though WDF was the only son of Samuel Fox and Ann Darwin, he had a half brother, Samuel Fox Jnr, from his fathers first marriage to Martha Strutt from another wealthy Derby family. Marriage settlements were the thing in those days and some of these daughters of wealthy parents came attached with a dowry - or as it was called a "Marriage Settlement". Both Samuel Jnr and William D Fox were left 6,000 pounds each plus a half share in the residual of their father's estate, while each of his sisters received 1,100 pounds.
His two younger sisters lived for many years in Ladbroke Square in London and were waited on by up to six servants. One of those sisters, Frances Jane Fox in 1850 made a collection of materials and fabrics that had been worn or used by her ancestors and attached signed notes to each item describing who had worn it or where it had come from. A lot of those notes and fabrics still survive today, and I am the current "minder". The earlist is a dress worn by Mary Bristowe née Savage in a portrait painted in 1740 (the portrait is now in the Nottinghamshire Archives), while another is of a piece of furniture covering fabric which is described as covering the furniture in the sitting room at Thurlston Grange circa 1810.
I have a website covering the Bristowes and a part of the genealogy of the Fox side is shown in Sheet C in the Genealogy section via the Index.
The url is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~bristowe
Kiwi Kousin 10:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Universism article
Duncharris, please unlock the Universism article - see talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Universism There is going to be a feature in the LA Times about this shortly. It would be a good time to reopen the article. Universist 06:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome message.
Ya'll are real attentive!
Thanks. I look forward to making relatively minor but useful contributions in the future. There's a bit to learn, but it appears the rules of common sense apply.
--Col tom 11:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Ww0=1V_dSs8?5*
I have sent off an indefinite block against this one. I think it is our old friend Willy on Wheels again. No need to slap the sockpuppets on the wrist with a ruler, just take out the big axe and chop their heads off. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
After reading the noticeboard, it appears I was wrong. The belief there is that this series of users was another old friend, namely Wik. Sorry... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
User Alkiviadis
I uploaded a wrong logo and replaced by mistake the logo of BNP Paribas. I uploaded then one from it's site but it doesn;t look the same. I am sorry for the mistake and I would be thankful if you could re-upload it.
Evolution edits
I have recently become aware that you reverted my comments towards Graft on the Talk:Evolution page. I've a full right to take back anything that I have said to anyone after I feel that amends have been made. In the future, please have the decency to notify me of such initiatives that you wish to take in affecting my image on Misplaced Pages, especially if you were originally uninvolved with the matter at hand. Have a nice day. Salva 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but it's proper to cross things that you reconsider
like this, to keep evidence easily accessible. I thought your little rant was an excellent short summary of the views of the nutjob creationist POV-pushers around here. It certainly had comedy value. Are you denying you wrote it? Dunc|☺ 08:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Did I ever say that I didn't write it? Who are you to intervene in a situation that does not concern you? My remarks were highly impulsive, and there was no need to have them on a public page. And I urge you to avoid making generalizations about your opponents. I'm a human being, and as such am liable to make mistakes just like you are. My actions were irresponsible and do not represent all "creationists." Salva 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't make any sense to waste my time when I'm simply ignored. I called Graft a despot because he is - he hates democracy, he's anti-american, anti-Christian, (probably anti-semitic,) pro-Islamofascist and a Neo-Darwinian. He's a despot running his own little fiefdom on Misplaced Pages with people like Aaarrrgh and thinks he can push objectors like creationists and ID advocates around like his beliefs matter more than theirs do. Let me tell you something, Graft, and Aaaarrgghh, you are products of typical secular University indoctrination that has fueled your contempt for, and your meandering of the scientific processes of peer review and progressivism in favor of preserving your atheist mandates. Well I won't suffer it. That paragraph is in place to confuse and obstruct the path towards truth. It's basically stating that "according to the science of biology, the origin of life can best be explained by random mutation-driven evolutionary processes, and any notion of divine intervention is bunk, and has been replaced." That is not objectivity. It's Wiki-Despotism. To my understanding - in concordance with the controversy that rages today over the origin of life (or Species, which is another word for all life that dwells on Earth,) why would it make sense for this article to claim factual accuracy on matters pertaining to the origin of life - either by way of random abiogenesis or Intelligent Design? Salva 04:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
There. Nutjob rant preserved for posterity. It really is quite funny, don't you think? Dunc|☺ 09:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a real mystery why conservative editors don't feel more welcomed here--WwJd 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why are religous people who rant necessarily conservative? Am I missing something here? Forget the politics and look at the content. There's some great stuff on the monoclonal antibodies thread. No content and comments based on ignorance. Seing this kind of thing time and time again, especially in the form of a rant warrants comment. Are you implying that wiki posters with a 'leaning to the left' who post such ignorant comments don't get it thrown back at them? David D. (Talk) 05:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
LadnaV
Hi there! I've fixed this one up since it was a hextuple block within a minute or so, but I just wanted to inform you that if you block a user twice, the shortest block is the one that sticks. So if you want to enhance your block, you must unblock first. Yours, Radiant_>|< 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know that the translation of "The Upanishads" by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1884 is still copyrighted #8-) Afsi 23:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
British Rail Class 35
Thank you for pointing out my simple error in such a publicly sarcastic manner. Eddie.willers 17:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It's a stitch up
Sorry, I haven't had any time to do this recently. I am away all weekend now, and so it will be Tuesday evening at the absolute earliest before I get any chance to even look at it, and realistically as I'm likely to have in the order of 400 photos of my own to sort through (I've got photos unsorted from trips I went on over a year ago still!) then its not going to happen soon. Whithout having seen the source photographs yet I don't know whether it will take me a few mintues or a couple of hours to get a decent panorama with the software I have. Sorry. Thryduulf 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- You can now view the results of my efforts on my talk page. Thryduulf 21:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
TVR
I'm afraid I don't know anything about trains. The TVR is just local to me, and all I wrote about the TVR, I just got from a book. Varitek 08:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've returned the book to the library. I need to return some other books in the next week or so, so I'll check then. Cheers, Varitek 09:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Knotty Edit
Hello Duncharris,
Many thanks for your welcome, most kind of you.
I am retired and now living in Llandudno. Formerly of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I was born and educated in Crewe. I have an abiding interest in railways and I am a long standing member of the Ffestiniog and WHR(C) societies and heritage groups. I produce websites for my parish church and for Cytûn, Llandudno Churches Together: http://www.llandudnochurches.org.uk and for my own pleasure: http://www.greatorme.org.uk.
Regards,
NoelWalley
81.154.223.166 07:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Photo of Novelty
Well done on getting a photo of Novelty at Rainhill in 1980.
I have a few photos I took myself of Novelty from 2002 and this year, as well as other photos of the TV filming in 2002. Only problem is I have not got my head around loading photos onto the system and allocating copyright details
- Thanks for advice. I'll find a suitable photo and give it a try. AHEMSLTD 19:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Success with a photo of Matheran Hill Railway loco. AHEMSLTD 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
L Class
Sorry, my knowledge of locomotives and rolling stock is very generalised. Regards, Noel.
Present
Thanks for the photo in the present, it's a nice one. Seems like there should be enough information to create an stub on the Port Talbot Railway & Docks Company and an article on the class of locos. Any idea if those were the only type of locos that the company used, and what class of locos GWR considered to be? Otherwise something like GWR "Port Talbot" Class might be appropriate. Cheers. chowells 13:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
Dear Duncharris,
what you have against changing the critisism of pseudoscience page done by me couple of minutes ago?
All the best, Sasha. --Iskander32 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Answers in Genesis
Dunc,
I see that you are also a scientist. I have nothing by an objective interest in AIG, as I find humor in their egregious "theories". AIG is a phenominon which should be documented. I have posted a few criticisms, a ëvolution of their theory, and a letter which I sent to them. Please do not mistake my curiousity with my condoning their conduct or anti-science. I believe the things I have posted have an anthropological distance from the material, and are neutrally describing what they believe and how they act. In the letter, they proclaim ricidulous things like "plants not being alive". Anyone who reads the letter will find that it is riddled with things that they simply made up to make the ends meet in their philosophy.
Thanks,
Reid 21:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: I just saw that you deleted my material. Dunc, c'mon. I just spent two hours preparing that material on AIG, you could have at least read some of it. I do not want a wiki-war, but I would like to restore my additions to the article, as they are a neutral description in every way. Please let me know if you are ok with this.
Reid 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Dunc,
Thanks for the partial nod of approval. Would it be alright if we restored the old version, but without the letter part? The part about how they hate Intelligent design, but eventually begin to condone it is really fascinating.
Dunc, I thought you said it was cool. I understand the letter not being in wiki-format, but the change of their belief structure is integral to an impartial perspective. Please don't delete it just to be a wiki-vigilante. My intentions are not to endorse creationism, but to illustrate their theories in the manner an anthropologist describes primitive tribes.
Pseudoscience (again)
Dear Duncharris,
We have already discussed the paragraph I wrote with others - see the part in the archive connected with the "Scientists_against_pseudoscience" http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pseudoscience#Scientists_against_pseudoscience. It seems to me that I was able to persuade others that something needs to be written which would stress that "pseudoscience" was used a lot to punish people - please read the corresponding section of the archive and links therein.
You see, many scientists were fired, killed or committed suicide only because "mainstream" science did not believe their theories (which were proved to be Ok at the end). I think that we need to reflect this in the criticism section. Instead, at the moment, the criticism section looks like an apology for the concept of "pseudoscience".
If you will continue to block this correction - I will probably produce an alternative page with the list of scientists who suffered because of the pseudosience label and make a reference to it in the main article.
Although, I have no idea what you do not like in my correction.
All the best, Sasha. --Iskander32 16:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Talk pages
Hello Dunc,
Am I using the NSR Talk page correctly?
Regards, Noel NoelWalley 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
LMS Stanier 2-6-4T
Were there two types of LMS Stanier 2-6-4T? There is the one for the current article, but there is a Stanier 2-6-4T no. 2500 built in 1934 preserved at the National Railway Museum that isn't mentioned (and doesn't fall within the number range). Our Phellap 22:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Would it not be easier just to have them both on the same page under different sub-headings? Our Phellap 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
British or English?
Hi I notice you are reverting when a certain user is trying to move people out of the British category. My personal view is that generally a lot of English people see themselves as British, but maybe Scottish or Welsh people like more to identify with their own countries. However I think certain admins have a thing about moving people to the most "exact" sub category, which in my opinion is totally destructive. For example people have been moving people out of Category:People from New York City to Category:Manhattanites and Category:Brooklynites. How far is this going to go- are they going to move people out of those categories to which street they lived in? This would make categories totally useless imo. Arniep 19:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, I agree with that if possible we need to find out how they described themselves ideally. They got a few more at Special:Contributions&target=88.106.61.84. Arniep 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: Photographic grey
There may have been some use of it toward the end of the 19th century, but all the builder's photos that I've seen from American builders use the equipment's in-service paint. It was the photographer's responsibility to ensure that the details could be seen; many photos were modified to remove any background as well, such as the PRR image at right (judging by the angle of the shadows on the locomotive, this photo was probably taken early in the morning). slambo 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Lickey Incline
1 in 37.7 rounds to 1 in 38, not 1 in 37. The claim of steepest sustained is an arguable concept and needs qualification. Please see my words (and make response) on Lickey Incline Talk page Bob aka Linuxlad 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
hi
just wondering how/why you know so much about the mitchison family? i don't use wikipedia that often, so if you want to reply you could use b e a t b o x e d @ h o t m a i l . c o m cheers, mark x
William Darwin Fox
Thanks for tidying the article up. It has grown a bit haphazardly as I've been trying to sort out "fact" from fiction.
Barry
WDF
The Soton University reproduction of a letter from the Geologist in 1862 would indicate the to me the content is no longer copyrighted. Perhaps a courtesy email to Soton University might clarify the situation. It seems to me that it might be a good idea to include a separate section in the current article dealing with WDF's geological and palaentology interests. Many of the Dinosaur sites have doubtful information regarding WDF in their content. It would seem when they make mention of Charles Darwin starting his thesis "On the Evolution of the Species" while staying on the IOW they had no idea that he was staying with WDF or that they were related.
Barry
use of rollback: no message on the discussion page or on my user talk page?
Did you use the rollback function here to revert my changes to Phillip E. Johnson? I thought you might have, because the comment in the edit summary looks just like the sort of text that rollback automatically generates.
I undid your revert, but than you re-did it. What is so urgent about this matter that (a) you had no time to write an edit summary and (b) even afterwards, you left no message on the discussion page or on my user talk page? Uncle Ed 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
3RR warning
What's going on at Phillip E. Johnson? You've reverted Ed four times, which isn't cool. Perhaps you should stop to discuss what you're doing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I'd only done him three times. Anyway, it's part of his latest foray into POV-pushing on pseudoscience topics. Unsurprisingly, FM has just reverted to the original version. Dunc|☺ 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Technically you only get 3 reverts a day per article regardless of whose revisions you're reverting. In any case, while Ed may well have been POV pushing (I have no idea since I am unfamiliar with the topic), I and many others would appreciate it if you would refrain from edit wars with him, or for that matter, anyone else. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you disagree with the content or not, you don't use admin rollback to revert it; that's abuse of sysop rights. Please don't edit war. Thanks, Rob Church 01:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
1862
Thanks for your help. Will organise the text mentioned into Wikisource. - Kiwi Kousin 08:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
L Class
I have put a photo of No 18 at Crewe in LNWR days on my web site: http://www.greatorme.org.uk/NSRSynopsis.htm It looks like an L Class but of course I don't know them well enough to be sure. I rediscovered the print (given to me nearly 60 years ago by the photographer's nephew) two days ago when looking for something else. You are welcome to a copy. NoelWalley 18:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration
You have been summoned to appear as defendant at a Request for Abritation. Please vist the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration page to make your statement under the heading Ben. --Ben 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)