User talk:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken

Welcome to WP, and farewell

Sorry to leave on you when you've just gotten here. I've been spending way to much time here...be careful, its addictive. I'm not so hot on staying around a place where the community is so difficult to work with, a lot of editors here seem to take offense quiet easily, while some are here just to flame anyone trying to put honest effort into articles or keep others from doing otherwise. In any event, I hope you enjoy and will speak with you soon my friend. Gtadoc 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems the fundamental problem with wikipedia is that experts in a field are given equal footing with anyone, even a drooling half wit who in a public forum wouldn't be given the time of day. Unless there is some mechanism to allow experts to identify their inclusions and only to allow other experts to edit them then I don't see how people who have the expertise to deal with complex subjects will keep from getting bogged down dealing with people who shouldn't even be involved in the discussion.Gtadoc 06:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you, I do agree having looked at the page as you asked me to that its pretty obvious that there are some editors there who have no clue what they are talking about. I've always held the view that wikipedia was nothing but that. I may have to agree with you and just stick to my day job, lol. BTW, tell your student she didn't break the electron microscope! wow, talk about seeing someone jump! I think she didn't believe me and just thought I was trying to make her feel better. Anyways, perhaps I will take an interest in editing, we'll see...I might see if this thing does have a feature like blue text or something for expert opinions. That'd be nice...Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 07:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Making Accusations

You need to remove the vandalism template you added to my talk page, and apologize. It is not vandalism to place a sockpuppet template on your page, when Wikipedia policy is that the sockpuppet template should be placed on your page if sockpuppetry is reported. Using compliance with Wikipedia policy as an excuse to make vandalism accusations is bad faith and a personal attack. Please undo your mistake. Thank you.Bsharvy 04:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you need to actually 1) have a good faith reason to put a sockpuppet up on a page and 2) the person accused by convention has to have done something wrong/broken some rule in order for an accusation even be made. I've read your history of contributions and to put it bluntly its laughable how little you understand the topic (singular) you've posted on; though as you have a link to your webpage I looked at it and I'm not surprised give your expertise seems to be education and woman's lacrosse. In person if you were to make such arguments to a knowledgable peer group you would be laughed at and ignored; perhaps wp needs a feature like that. I'm not trying to be rude (really, I'm trying hard, you should see what I really thing of people who talk out their rectum) but for someone of your lack of expertise to insult people who really do have it is the reason why wp will continue to be an unreliable source for any topics requiring a scholarly understanding. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy perhaps you should read this...though, I'm not sure if its official WP policy, lol: < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick>

Bsharvy

Running counts of the number of times this user has vandalised my 1 week old talk/user page. Current count: 4 Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW Putting "sockpuppet" tags randomly on users pages is vandalism, as is putting tags on pages without any violation of WP:SOCK. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 12:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please understand wikipedia has clear guidelines of what "vandilism" is. Stupid people amking stupid accusations isn't one of them. Please remember WP:AGF, and if you are in the right, you have nothing to lose by playing along.--ZayZayEM 01:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going by "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." as his behavior was the same on the page on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I later realized that you are right...unfortunately no one can force him to read Don't be a dick so for the most part I've just tried to ignore him, though I still comment to defend other users who he disagrees with as he frequently posts on etiquette pages/admin notice boards/RFC any user who disagrees with his editing. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gtadoc

I have closed this case and find no evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. However, since you and Gtadoc know each other, there is a possibility that you may be perceived as a meatpuppet in the future. If both you and Gtadoc continue to edit, I advise you to work on separate articles and not to jointly participate in controversial discussions; to do so may lead to further accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries, as I think gtadoc has left. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 04:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey... I asked Bsharvy the same thing... Can we let it go, please? You and I both know, that no sane checkuser is going to run a RFCU on you (at least, not at present). You also, already know that RFCU isn't the place to complain about another user. There's really no benefit to you, to bother with that page, as it will likely be declined, and deleted (I'm pretty sure they delete those, instead of archiving them.... I might be wrong, however) soon.

Why don't we get back to working on an encyclopedia, instead of feuding and fighting? SQL^{(Query Me!)} 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate, I don't take any of that stuff seriously...unfortunately my interest lies mostly elsewhere on WP, I was only asked to comment on that page b/c my background in radiation biology, I'm not all that interested in the history as from my perspective its pretty clear cut, those wanting to argue about it aren't wanting to add to an encyclopedia they're just wanting to push an agenda...I'm a bit more intrested in editing some of these science stubs I see floating all over the place...Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima Nagasaki talk page

I took the liberty to mention you and your opinions (as I understood them) here [[1]], to try to achieve consensus for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombing article. Hope you dont mind, and that I didnt misunderstood you. I would clearly welcome your comment. --Firkenknecht 08:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty close...I'm not sure how it should be written, but to say a significant number of people died of radiation after the bombing (immediately at least) is completely false and shows a complete misunderstanding of how radiation affects human biology. In any event, the 200k number isn't accurate by any means and doesn't appear to really be sourced anywhere...looking at the studies that did look at long term affects it looks like there probably were some leukemia deaths but they were likely not very high as the expected time to disease peaks at about 10 years and the total to date per BEIR 7 was something like 200 people(don't have it on hand at home) and then a few thousand much later from solid tumours (peak rates for those are tissue dependent). With the dosages and dose rates you don't see any other affects besides cancer, the radiation would likely have been a complicating factor (along with malnutrition, probably even more important) in a lot of the deaths from burns and trauma that occured afterwards...I think some of the editors have watched "the hills have eyes" or something one too many times and simply want to include things that have no scientific foundation. I will repost here as soon as I find it the previous discussion that eric posted where they had previously gone through the sources and reached the previous numbers that were being used in the article. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki/Archive_7#Casualties_revisited

Thanks for the link, long to read but interesting. So, globally, what you are saying is that there were no (or almost no) cases of "radiation sickness" deaths in the weeks following the bombings? It seems to go against most of the existing sources.. but as you point it, I am no expert in the effect of radiation towards human biology (I remember having courses on it... a long time ago :) ). For the long-term deaths, on the RERF page can also be read that "The Life Span Study mortality analyses have revealed a statistically significant relationship between radiation and deaths resulting from causes other than cancer (so-called noncancer diseases)". What do you think of it? It seems to me that, like you said, radiation may have been a complicating factor, but a quite important one at least. --Firkenknecht 07:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your last sentence sums it up; it was a complicating factor, and yes an important one. Two other ones are often also overlooked. Widespread malnutrition was probably the most important complicating factor for most, for the long term post traumatic stress was also a very significant factor. Interestingly, two studies after chernobyl indicated that the greatest number of long term adverse health effects were actually stress induced, not from radiation. As of yet though I haven't seen any scientific study quantifying how much of a contributing factor radition was before 1950, while from 1950 to present it is pretty well charactorized. A lot of unscientific sources had made claims but I haven't yet seen anything with any evidence, and, given what we know today about doses the people who were close enough to have received doses necessary to cause acute death would have been very close to the epicenter and radiation was probably to least of their problems (assuming they survived the blast). The only thing I have seen is estimates of radiation on people who died immediately but I don't have those on hand at the moment...Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 13:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for editwarring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)