User talk:Mikker/Archive003
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
Baie dankie
User:Cool Cat/In many languages... Thank you for your translation efforts, its gretly appriciated. I hope you return from your involuntery wiki-break as soon as possible. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Dawkins...
Thanks for the invite to get involved with getting Richard Dawkins ready for WP:FAC, though I can't claim the literary style needed for such accolades. Things are a bit of a rush just now, and from what I can see it looks pretty good, but will try to find time to help if I can. As you may have noted my first reaction was to go off on a tangent about butterflies, but will try to get back on track sometime..dave souza, talk 19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Reminder...
— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Back?
Good to see you around. Hope your access problems have been solved. Hope all is well with you. Guettarda 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Languages
Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ellipses
Howdy, not that this is important, but... regarding this - which academic literature do you read? I've never seen it used either in books or in the formal literature. Ellipses are used to indicate when when words are missing from a quoted phrase, I've never seen it used to indicate 'oh, there was stuff before this too!' and 'oh, stuff follows this!' - everyone knows that already. Check out the Chicago manual of style's recommendations: [1]. Mikker (...) 21:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- In general, if you cut off mid-sentence in a place that could be mistaken for the end of a sentence, you use ellipses. - Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I did justify the POV tag to big bang theory
Please check the talk page. ken 23:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Notable
Is this page notable or not: Mikhail Lebedev. Please nominate it for deletion if you think it is not notable. --GoOdCoNtEnT 08:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Evolution
You wrote: I have reverted your edits on the evolution article, I don't think they are accurate. The section you are editing has emerged out of a long process of consensus formation, so please justify why you think the changes you want are justified on the aticle's talk page.
1. You haven't said why the changes are not 'accurate'.
2. To explain: I made the adjustment because I regarded the old text as biased. To cite 3 Jewish groups as regarding evolution as coherent with their belief may be 'true' but it is unbalanced. For example, I am aware of Orthodox Jews who are not in agreement with evolution. I would also regard it as unbalanced to just cite this viewpoint.
3. You didn't say why you regarded the reference to Hinduism as inaccurate.
4. I liked the link http://webusers.xula.edu/cporter/2000n/evolution_and_religion.htm as more balanced overall.
I'm not going to remake the changes or add anything on the talk page. Your choice about what you do about it.
Hey
Just dropping by. [[
--Adriaan90 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Template Discussion
Please check out [2].bunix 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Colin Powell
Your recent edit to Colin Powell (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
editing John Stuart Mill
Hi, I appreciate your coments (you clearly know what you're doing!). I'm having a little trouble, however, finding where I depart from neutrality in the Mill edit. Is it in evaluative statements like this: "one of the most important treatises ever written on the concept of liberty"? It seems to me that no political philosopher, even Mill's staunchest opponents, would doubt that statement (I mean, even somebody who dislikes Shakespeare wouldn't claim he isn't a critical figure in world literature). Or is there something else I'm missing? I'm sincerely interested in help here--I'm still a relatively new editor and certainly want to respect community standards. THANKS! Benzocane 23:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
hey thanks for the heads up, but dont' worry, that's definitely not my main, or even secondary email address, such a pseudonym account I keep for special purposes--Aliwalla 19:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. I don't think it says what you think it says. [3]
chocolateboy 03:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Otto von Bismarck
Hi. I am very impressed with your argument for opposing Otto von Bismarck as a feature. Having read it more closely I can see a number of faults which clearly don't yet meet criteria. However the bones are clearly there for a potential feature but do you know anyone who would improve it to feature? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Please See development on MA issue
[4] Amoruso 01:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
hello
I will find the entry on the talk page where I brought up the issue. Afrikaans is considered closer to standard Dutch than many Dutch dialects that are geographically closer to the Netherlands so I personally find it strange you would have such difficulty with it (a few linguists still debate whether it is a distinct language or not from Dutch). I had a friend who was from South Africa and he could speak Standard Dutch with others in one of my linguistics classes and I know for a fact that there are also many Afrikaners who also are able to speak it, and this makes sense considering Dutch was an official language in South Africa all the way till 1961 (and Afrikaans only became official in 1925). In any case, the two are so closely related that it can be difficult to distinguish in some cases whether the person is speaking Afrikaans or the more standard form of Dutch (which is still taught in a few schools in South Africa for obvious benefical resons since standard Dutch is a more global language). Ciao, Epf 20:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Its somewhere in here: Talk:Afrikaner /Archive 22/09/06 (sub-heading "language" I believe), although at the time I wasn't able to use my Epf user account (issues with vandals) and was under an anonymous IP. Ciao, Epf 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Your vote please
Hi Mikkerpikker - Please vote on the proposed name change of the 'South African farmer murders' page. The straw poll is here. Please also pass this message on to others you think would be interested. Thank you! Cheers, Jason Lionchow - Talk 08:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Evolution
I'm rather puzzled by your edit here. The change appears to have been unnecessary in that it detracted from the NPOV rather than added to the NPOV of the article, POV in a way similar to the Discovery Institute view, quite possibly OR -- after all, what is "popular evolutionary theory"? -- and in bad form all round. Essentially, the edit gave as much creedence to evolution as to the Roswell incident, which as we know is a comparison that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. •Jim62sch• 09:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. After I left the above message, I saw that you reverted something else that's on my watchlist the way I figured you normally would and then I got really confused. I even considered the possibility of pseudo-entity theft! Oh well, we've all had stuff like that happen. :) Cheers. •Jim62sch• 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk Dawkins
Hi. Sorry about your modem. Several of the archives that I restored were discussions that had last been edited four days ago. That is an ongoing discussion. Everything I restored has been edited this month. And some things like Talk:Richard Dawkins#Balanced listing of notable academic critics and supporters that you removed are inescapably germane and part of current disputes that are taking place lower down the page. I'm aware of WP:SIZE but I still managed to cut out 79 kb and leave that as the new archive. And I fixed the archive list right after I broke it. Again, sorry about your modem, but I'm afraid there's little else we can do. The talk has exploded since The God Delusion came out, and many open lines of discussion are going to continue. Size and speed constraints cannot be allowed to get in the way of dialogue. — Coelacan | talk 20:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Steven Pinker
RE: "Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Mikker (...) 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"
Gosh, I can't see how this is vandalism. I even checked with multiple people about this who know all of the people involved. They all agreed that the ex-wives should not be part of his bio. If you have some contentful reason beyond "vandalism" please state it. Otherwise, there is no justification other than voyeurism. In the Wikipedia etiquette section, it says: "Don't ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.208.11 (talk • contribs)
Matt Ridley
I note you deleted the following from the Matt Ridley article:
"It is short, lacks any references, and has no index. See Horace Freeland Judson's recent review of the new book in "Nature" (Vol. 443, 26 October 2006) for further detailed criticism. However in view of the shortcomings of Francis Crick's autobiography, the book is still a valuable addition to the scientific literature until such time as Professor Robert Olby's full length biography of Francis Crick is published in 2007."
This is valid criticism of a new book, the author of which describes it as (quote) "a biographical sketch rather than the whole picture" by the way. Have you read the review in Nature? If not, record your e-mail address [temporarily below] and I will send it to you! MDP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.164 (talk • contribs)
Your recent edit (diff) contains in its summary "rm ellipses per WP:MOS". Having looked at the "ellipses" section of the MOS, I can't see any recommendation to remove ellipses in such positions. What am I missing? Loganberry (Talk) 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In Response To [5]
Replied on my talk page (and on the incidents board). My apologies again. There had been almost no activity when I made that goof so I thought it would be safe of me to revert my goof. -WarthogDemon 21:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding X-com
I tried to do the rewrite, but the examples in the manual of style, I cannot find a decent example of a synopsis that doesn't break into in universe tone.(I was looking for some inspiration). I'd really like to change the synopsis, but I'm not much of a writer. If it wasn't for the fact that the {{in-universe}} completely broke the visual layout of the article, I'd leave it in for someone else to fix. As it stands, I really have no idea what to do. i kan reed 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Charles Darwin review
Please do, if you don't mind. Vanished user talk 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Columns
...I have to ask, *should* we be putting the references in two columns at all? I mean, we have the low-quality further reaing, and a lot of largely very high quality references. Why are we hiding all the good books and links by making them tiny? It's not like it's a paper encyclopedia, or like there's anything important below them. Vanished user talk 01:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weel, we could do it, but I think we should put Further reading (and possibly external links) into the same columns if we did, and I'm not sure that's possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user (talk • contribs)
Actually, that's a point. If we lost the further reading section, there wouldn't be an inconsistency with shrinking and columning the reference section. Vanished user talk 14:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC) I've had a look. It's... awkward. See, the Saffron article divides its reference list in half, into two <div>s - which, of course, depends on you dividing them evenly. It's not really edit-safe, and I think we should save it until after its front page day. Vanished user talk 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
ITN
On you posting this on ITN, please see my concerns here. Thanks, Mikker (...) 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have responded. -- tariqabjotu 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed it to post-apartheid because of Charles Llewellyn, who was black according to the currently known facts. Should we add an explanation in South African cricket team to avoid any confusion ? Tintin (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
whoops!
my mistake, my brain saw 'myspace' and not 'mypage'. i visited the site and it looks like a good EL, my apologies. and thanks for assuming good faith! :) JoeSmack Talk 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)