User talk:Fama Clamosa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived.

Welcome to my talk page. Start a new section. --Fama Clamosa

Sea salt[edit]

If you can disprove what I said about sea salt, I would like to hear it. In addition I did not do any 3RR. Have a good day. --Tarhound21 (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Please stop your edit warring, if you have objections to my edit you can explain them on the talk page rather than blindly reverting my edits. --Tarhound21 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert on Aquatic Ape Hypothesis[edit]

It's just personal retribution against me, ain't it? Blah, whatever.

So you are from Belgium? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ha, no such luck, no.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I saw it necessary to report you for vandalism against Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. You may dislike the topic and feel it's off the rockers, but you can't let personal distaste trash an entire Wiki article. If this idea is wrong, a balanced presentation, including various imagery, will only support that at length.--CEngelbrecht (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Just stop! --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Publisher vs work field in citations[edit]

Hello, thanks very much for the reference you added to Brenda Fassie. However, the work field is better than the publisher field for newspapers like The Independent, because the former field puts the newspaper title in italics (which is the standard formatting in this situation). I only discovered this minor issue relatively recently myself. Graham87 03:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointers, Graham. I'll try to remember it. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pygmy right whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petrosal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:CEngelbrecht making false accusations of 'vandalism' and sockpuppetry.. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 19:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis[edit]

I can only assume from this contentious claim that you think you have wider consensus than might be found on the subject's talk page to arbitrarily remove illustrative pictures and text. Can you point me to that "community consensus on a wider scale" which endorses your deletions? If you fail to do so, I will reinstate the edits you have removed, and hope you will take the time to argue for the deletions you wish to propose. Alfietucker (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Even to an AAH advocate, it should be apparent that AAH is FRINGE. Notwithstanding all the ARGUE or the CONSENSUS on that page, it should be apparent to you that there is no general acceptance of AAH. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should describe AAH as FRINGE. Any "alternative views", if mentioned, should be described as FRINGE too. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Even allowing that AAH is "fringe", it is the encyclopaedia's job to present the arguments of that hypothesis (indeed, to give a reasonably full exposition of its subject), and then debunk them. What you appear to be doing, on the contrary, is deleting material without discussion. btw WP:POV, which I assume you are referring to in this edit comment, applies to comments or slants provided by the WP editor, not to published opinion which is duly credited as was the case of the text you deleted without discussion. Will you now be so good as to provide the "community consensus on a wider scale" you claim you have? Alfietucker (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for a "community consensus" and it is certainly not "the job" of Wikipedia to "present arguments". AAH is FRINGE and it should be described as such. And that is it. Please stop POV-pushing Wikipedia. A place anyone can edit is not your venue. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"A place anyone can edit is not your venue." With due respect, you appear not only to misunderstand Wikipedia policies, but even its ethos - let alone to ignore the fact that I have been editing here since 2006 and, I dare say, have earned considerable respect for my work here. Further, I can only assume from your latest reply that your claim that you have "community consensus" is itself based on an assumption - you are very welcome to put it to the test if you so wish; either that, or come to the talk page as I have previously suggested. Alfietucker (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"Community consensus" again? Have you been pushing a POV since 2006? Should I waste the rest of my life arguing on "that" talk page? Just accept that AAH is FRINGE and should be described as such. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It was you - not I - who first linked to this policy with your edit comment here: if you don't like what it says, I suggest you read the policies you link to more carefully. Alfietucker (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)