Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales
thank you for your revert.
unfortunately you didn't revert the first vandalism though.
there are some moron/s who have nothing better to do with their time than continually vandalise my page because they disagree with my beliefs. Xtra09:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
screwup on VfD nom
I tried to be bold, but seem to have messed something up with my VfD nomination for Ryan Coleman. It shows as item 2. on today's VfD listing, instead of 1.3141268 or whatever. Help. :-/ Tomer 18:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind. thanks. I deleted it and put it back in and it works now. Tomer 18:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Removal of RJII's comment
I noticed that you removed RJII's somewhat uncivil comment on the BCE/CE debate page. While I agree that RJII's comment doesn't help the discussion directly, it helps us understand his decision making process and his views behind his edits. I seriously doubt Slrubenstein would have been hurt by the comment, and I really don't believe it was your place to remove it. Be Bold isn't intended to apply to editing other people's discussion outside of the main article space. --Gmaxwell17:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Greg, thanks for your message. RJII's comment did not serve to explain anything about his vote and wasn't attached to a vote. This is an entirely personal thing directed against Steve, due to a dispute they had at another article. RJII is prone to make personal attacks and they serve only to create ill-feeling; for that reason, I feel justified in removing it according to Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks. I hope you'll consider supporting me in this. The page has deteriorated somewhat from its initial purpose (which was to decide on the BC/AD thing and to generate discussion of the NPOV policy), and I don't want to see it entirely degenerate into abuse. Steve has decided to drop out for the time being, which means he can't respond, so in addition to the above, it's simply unfair that these comments should be left on the page, in my view. SlimVirgin 17:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I can respect your position, although I strongly disagree with the practice of removing personal attacks. So, I will not create any more fuss about your reversion of RJII's commentary. I think this case is a good example of one of the reasons why I disagree with removing personal attacks: Right now there are several people who disagree with Slrubenstein who are accusing him of making personal attacks because some of the comments he made once the discussion became heated were somewhat uncivil, and yet no one has gone back and cleaned up his act. As a result of attack removal a reader of Slrubenstein's commentary would not see the real sequence of events that led to the strongly worded replies, and the reader might reasonably conclude that Slrubenstein was acting irrationally. If removing a personal attack actually caused it to never exist, I would probably agree with the practice but it doesn't. I think it would be more productive of us to reply to personal attacks by stating that making such attacks is unbecoming for a wikipedian and that we support the attacked, or at least don't agree with the attacker. I've also seen many cases where the accusation 'personal attack', when used on someones borderline commentary, comes across as insulting itself (after all, a good wikipedia tries not to use language that comes off as attacking) and as a result only manages to further heat a hot temper. I understand that we probably disagree on this subject, and I'm thankful for your politely worded and well thought out reply. ... Happy editing --Gmaxwell18:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Greg, actually I agree with most of what you said, though I haven't read the entire page and so I don't know what the exact sequence of posts is. However, RJII's comment stuck out like a sore thumb because it wasn't part of any exchange, but was a sort of "up yours" parting shot at Steve, completely detached from the debate, which is why I felt justified in removing it. I'm not going to get into a further edit war about it, however (I've deleted it once more, but won't do so if it's restored again) and I also thank you for your thoughtful response, and for agreeing not to restore the remark. SlimVirgin 18:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
... there's a dispute that has been listed on RfC at Talk:Perverted-Justice.com and so far I'm the only person who's come calling. I'm afraid my one lone opinion against two very entrenched opinions is not going to make terribly much difference... and beyond that, there are several issues that I've never dealt with before personally. (For instance, the webmasters of this site have created a special page for people who visit from the Misplaced Pages page, decrying certain Misplaced Pages practices and presenting certain information. I find this curious and I'm not entirely sure how best to deal with it). Anyway, FWIW! · Katefan0 00:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Bleh! Thanks so much for weighing in. This one will be difficult because, it seems, there are so many anon POV warriors hanging around with either no understanding of or no regard for the way Misplaced Pages works toward consensus on talk pages... · Katefan0 18:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Great editing, SV. You not only improved the writing, but you've raised the article to a much higher level of NPOV and accuracy. In the process you've apparently defused a chronic editing war. Not bad for 24 hours. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:35, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
my theory
i believe this is either PSYCH or someone associated with him or her thus:
it appears to be a similar style each time.
i am almost 90% sure PSYCH has done at least some of it.
PSYCH said he had posted to a left wing blog to tell everyone to attack me.
therefore, i believe it is either PSYCH or someone acting on PSYCH's advice (e.g. Buffy05 who Tim Starling told me used the same IP as PSYCH).
Mind you they keep on using different IPs it is quite hard to stop. Xtra09:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing. It means a lot to me. Tom Haws 18:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Human
Firstly, I wish to apologize for my English, but I am not a native English speaker.
Secondly, as all my recent additions were reverted instead of being edited, I wish to suggest different improvements. It is really silly that I have to explain some of them here, but everything was removed.
image descriptions: should describe the content of images, not the images themselves (see: Misplaced Pages:Alternative text for images). Besides that, the captions I added offered new information.
links - I made many links to other articles that were removed, although they were useful and obvious improvements.
references: new useful and requested references from reliable sources were removed. May I ask why? They were important improvements.
People with disabilities are not even mentioned. They should be, I believe, although this is a new proposal.
Different "minor" edits that may be equally important (although I find it rather silly to mention them before including). Do I really have to ask for including them before doing so? These are e.g.: genetics - I find it important to explain them briefly in light of 1% difference between human and chimps and in light of two sexes; an ovum is mentioned, but a sperm cell is not - shouldn't it be added?!; blood clotting - inaccurate and misleading; homosexuality is totaly neglected (it's important to at least mention it); information on written and extinct languages should be added or the current sentence about spoken and sign languages shortened; informal sanctions are mentioned, what about the rewards; certain people believe that inanimate objects have souls, do they not? and certain others do believe that not only humans have a soul-->definition should be changed; Messiah - salvation by human: also a part of Judaism (for a nation); puberty - removed, although an important part of human life. Btw, it was not only food I mentioned here!
In brief, although perhaps there was a mistake or two, many of my edits were good edits and I don't understand why everything was reverted as not important and wrong instead of being revised and why I have to ask before changing what is obviously inaccurate. I have provided references and if some material should perhaps be transferred to other articles, I would do it myself if I had been asked to do so. I hope for a fair answer, as I really don't understand your reasoning. You even did not take the time to look at my edits seriously. Many thanks, --Eleassar77723:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: It is probably most appropriate to transfer the section with my suggestions on the talk page of the article "human".
Thanks for your willingness to improve the article yourself instead of just leaving it in a crude state I had put it in. You can start by implementing proposed changes that are important and you do not oppose to, but you nevertheless removed:
I would also appreciate you putting "implemented changes as proposed by Eleassar777: links, references and image captions" or something similar in the edit summary and leave me a notice when you finish as editing took me a lot of time yesterday. --Eleassar77710:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Holocaust photos
I dare say all the photos are copyvios and need to be removed. I was much more cavalier about such things at that time. Are you making any progress towards restarting on the text? Adam06:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
snow-coat.jpg)
