| Revision as of 01:55, 30 November 2007 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by Persianhistory2008 - ""← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:53, 1 December 2007 edit undoAnthon01 (talk | contribs)4,204 edits →removed my talkNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| ==removed my talk== | ==removed my talk== | ||
| You removed what I wrote again on the page of Orange, I have placed it back. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | You removed what I wrote again on the page of Orange, I have placed it back. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| ==Reverted== | |||
| Was there a personal attack written in the text of the talk page? Please point that out to me. Was there something inappropriate in the text I reverted? If so, please point it out. Otherwise your removing the text is vandalism. If not not then the text should remain. --] 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:53, 1 December 2007
 Archives |
Agree with me!
I love it when people agree with me. Warms my heart from the bottom of the cockles right to the top. Have a tiny barnstar - * WLU 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Relax
I appreciate the support on a few things. But I don't like to see people like you blocked--I like watching the POV-warriors for Creationism and other Pseudosciences blocked for bad behavior. Just be careful, we need you. BTW, is Science Apologist a female? Little did I know. OrangeMarlin 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure on SA's gender. I think Davkal wanted to get a dig in on SA by using references to a girl. And yes, I know I need to take a deep breath but I get so tired of seeing these POV-warriors even tolerated, especially when it is quite clear they are single purpose editors. Baegis 05:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Methinks you should re-read your user page :P
I know it's hard, I know it's frustrating to deal with trolls day after day, but cranking up the rhetoric and failing to give at least the appearance of good faith can result in YOU being blocked; just being patient and clam usually results in the other party being blocked. Misplaced Pages's not going away! Remember User:Imbrella - give a genuine troll enough rope and they will hang themselves. Time is our ally, patience our armour. As I wax poetic, I depart to Duane Gish to sort out the mess. Though I can't fault your enthusiasm! WLU 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Soooooo not worth getting in an edit war over. Remember the 3rr. WLU 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
AN/I on Davkal
Please comment. ScienceApologist 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sandbox header
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. You may make test edits in the sandbox, but for the convenience of others, please leave the sandbox heading alone. P51Mustang 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, but you blanked the whole page. Try reverting to a version with the header next time. P51Mustang 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome! P51Mustang 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Duane Gish
There is nothing particularly noteworthy about working as a "research assistant". What is noteworthy, in terms of Gish, is that he worked in biochemical and biomedical research, given that he has since devoted himself to challenging evolutionary science, including contradicting evidence in biochemical "origin of life" experiments. It is so noteworthy, in fact, that his background as a biochemist is given note in source after source-Numbers, Larson, Montagu, Witham, McKown, Holton et al in Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship, need I go on? Talk origins also notes this fact as well. If this is an unfair assessment, then you have my apology, but you appear to be using various objections over "style" as an excuse to leave out "content", information which perhaps you feel lends him credibility he doesn't deserve? Whether he deserves any cred or not, his background is significant to the role he has played as spokesperson in the creation movement. Do you know what sources have identified the positions he held at Berkeley, etc? Because it was unsourced until I put the source there, and that source does not say what positions he held. It does say all the content I put there, which you have removed twice. So if anything should be challenged, it would be the unsourced claim, not that he worked for how ever many years in biochemical and biomedical research. If editors have strong feelings about Gish or any other controversial topic, then those feelings have to be put to the side while editing so that the sources alone determine what content is important.Professor marginalia 00:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I also see merit in leaving the info, and the reason for removing it escapes me. Irrespective of how he has squandered the credibility given by his professional accreditation and actual research, his history includes time spent doing biochem and bio research. WLU 00:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I will cede to the prevailing opinion. I hold no strong feelings about Gish; I just want the article to read as well as possible. Baegis 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- As you will see on Talk:DG, I'd made a comment that somewhat disparaged your post above, since redacted. I'd assumed (making an ass out of just me) that your post would have been a bit less conciliatory without reading it. Obviously this was unwarranted and a grossly incorrect assumption. I'm very sorry about it and have withdrawn it. Feel free to remove the struck out version and the following comment if you'd like. Your post went beyond reasonable, into the realm of polite. Good stuff, and again my apologies. WLU 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove my comments
From the talk page of OM? Is protesting the accusation of "troll" unacceptable to you? Turtlescrubber 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, his warning is not valid. He is reverting my pov tag and calling me a troll. I stopped the edit war on the page by adding the pov tag and using the talk page. I have received nothing for my efforts but incivility. Turtlescrubber 04:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
MrOctober1973
FYI, MrOctober1973 (talk · contribs) has been correct with his edits so far so please be careful reverting. We need people who are willing to comb through for mistakes like that. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I misread the stats from the ref. My bad. Baegis 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
NFL drafts Chapel Hill
Thank you for your kind comments, I do know people who refer to UNC as Chapel Hill might I also add that your lack of ref's in your comments make it hard to verify your concerns. Let me also point out there is no naming convention on the subject matter and after months of cleaning up the draft pages I assure you there remains worse situations to resolve, of these 3 alleged edits I have no interest nor concern. Furthermore I've not changed anything to reflect differently than other articles in the series. In other words there are more out there to fix on your naming convention quest, Happy Hunting. Slysplace | 22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
removed my talk
You removed what I wrote again on the page of Orange, I have placed it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianhistory2008 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverted
Was there a personal attack written in the text of the talk page? Please point that out to me. Was there something inappropriate in the text I reverted? If so, please point it out. Otherwise your removing the text is vandalism. If not not then the text should remain. --Anthon01 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)