User talk:PhilMacD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Acanthocardia[edit]

A tag has been placed on Acanthocardia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.166.92.143 14:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Units[edit]

Please don't introduce errors into articles, as you have done here.[1] These things can take a long time to catch. Raymond Arritt 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being stupid (it happens quite often) but isn't 33 °C equal to 91.4°F, not 59.4 °F? I didn't do it to be malicious! Just before that in the article it says "15 °C [equals] (288 K or 59 °F)". They can't both be right can they?

Wait, I understand now, I was being dumb. Sorry! I'll be more careful in future.

Unblock[edit]

Vista-clean.png

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 144.124.16.33 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Sandstein (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcina and disamiguation[edit]

Hi, PhilMacD. fyi, I have reverted your recent edit to Sarcina (disambiguation) because of concerns with the disambiguation manual of style.

  • MOS:DAB#Red links specifies that red linked entries should only be added if another article already contains the link; Sarcina ventriculi has no other inbound links, yet, so it is not a valid entry until another article points towards it.
  • MOS:DAB#Individual entries specifies that:
    • There should only be one (1) navigable (blue) link in a dab entry. So only the most relevant (in your opinion) of extremophile, bacteria or pH should have a link, not all three.
    • External links should never (yes, it says it that strongly) be included in entries or descriptions of disambiguation pages as they are for disambiguating Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web.

Thanks for all of your hard work. Happy continued editing and best wishes. Gwguffey (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

  • You have right. I know it but often I forget to use it. I usualy edit/write articles for the grrek (by language) Wiki, but as I opened both artcles for methane I decided to make some exchanges between as my knowledge of both languages allow me to do so. I spend more time to the greek one because I think they are generaly and relatively much behind. But there is much room for improvement to english one too. If I knew well other languages I would try to offer to their Wiki too.
  • Thank you for your help anyway. Can I freely ask for your help, when I need it for thw Wiki?
  • I read your page and I saw that we have some commons in cosmotheory.
  • If you need any kind of my help you're welcome to ask it freely.
  • Personal contact is also optional if you wish to from my side.

--Vchorozopoulos (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Plasmodium[edit]

THanks for catching that recent incorrect edit. Its a very common misstatement in the text books that only 4 species infect humans. The running total currently exceeds 210 species - not 125 given in that edit. DrMicro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.121.108 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

T. microti[edit]

Hi there, thanks for the feedback. The info I got was from the book "Clinical Microbiology made Ridiculously Simple", 4th edition. Unfortunately I dont know the proper format for references, nor do I know how to put references into wikipedia. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabronimus (talkcontribs) 12:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time or knowledge to do so, but T. microti needs to be reverted back to Babesia microti. For reasoning, please see the following article that was written after an extensive review of the classification: K.-P. Hunfeld et al. / International Journal for Parasitology 38 (2008) 1219–1237

Your addition of a [citation needed] tag to Rwandan Genocide[edit]

Hi, thanks for your help editing Rwandan Genocide. Just to say, it'd have been almost as easy to get a reference from the articles about the film, as it would to put a fact tag to the article, especially when the statement is very well referenced in other parts of wikipedia. It keeps the articles less messy, and of course, better referenced. Thanks. --PhilMacD (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not have the time.... I am not sure why you leave this message on the talk page of the original contributor Elonka, who did not add a reference to her contribution. Its her not me who has created work for you. I don’t know anything about Hotel Rwanda, hence it would have taken me a good time to find a reference. I find your approach puzzling... why don’t you rant on the talk page of editors who add unreferenced content, instead of hustling me. --SasiSasi (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. I also didn't mean to come across as impolite. I just didn't think that necessarily required a ref because it had one elsewhere. But I'm sorry, you weren't to know. Have a nice day my dear!--PhilMacD (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

all content in an article needs to be referenced, even if its referenced in another wikipedia article (which I had to come to terms with after I had to post-reference half an article - ta admin). Usually the original editors add the reference after they return to the article and find the fact tag on their contribution, takes a couple of days. If I have some time I leave a polite message on the original contributor's talk page encouraging them to add refs to their contributions... but I absolutely do not intend to reference after people, I rather spend the time researching my own contributions.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

River Rheidol[edit]

Thanks for the update and refs on the River Rheidol article. I should have known better as an ex Environment Agency water quality scientist....ho hum ! Velela (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing behaviour at Babesia article[edit]

Hi. I note that you have made some substantive contributions to the Babesia article. This page has been heavily edited by a temporary account (‘Nmunabi’) who apparently has knowledge of the subject. (I am not an expert in this area.) Yet he/she destroyed all the wikilinks and all the inline references. I don’t understand why. I reconstructed the references before realizing quite what had happened. So my question to you is, were this guy’s edits useful, or vandalism? What was he up to?

Appreciate your insight at the article talk page. Earthlyreason (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009

(UTC)

Very helpful additions to the Kevin Gately article Thankyou Kusala1952

Wiltshire Council[edit]

I reverted your edit, as the figures you changed were correct. A Conservative resigned and was replaced by another Conservative. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for that? The wiltshire council website election results indicate 62 conservatives.--PhilMacD (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That's correct. There were 62 after the June 2009 elections, but they lost one in a by-election a few weeks later and went down to 61. The resignation took that to 60, but holding that by-election took the number back to 61. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious sourcing[edit]

Good afternoon. On the Duncan Hames article, I noticed you removed his religion stating the AtheismUK reference was unreliable. It seems legit to me. Could you explain? Thanks. PhilMacD (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Apols for the delayed response. The background is this: the IP in question had been adding unsourced religious info to hundreds of BLP articles. Quite often editors do get a bee in their bonnet about adding religious practice to info boxes. When pushed, s/he then started adding Atheism UK as a source to a few. The guideline on reliable sources suggest that questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views that are... promotional in nature". Atheism UK is explicitly an anti-religious campaigning organisation. After adding (mostly unsourced) religious info to about 300 articles the IP finally stopped. I hope that help explains the rationale. Act as you think fit over my edit. Best wishes Span (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for explaining. I'll ask Atheism UK if they can expand a little on the info they provide, and then it might become an acceptable source. Regards PhilMacD (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Open Awards[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Open Awards requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Eeekster (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hero shrew[edit]

Alex Shih(talk) 00:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Gauntlett for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Gauntlett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gauntlett until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WTC Jumpers[edit]

Per your request, I have added two reliable sources for the number of jumpers and redid my edit. Thank you.Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothermere[edit]

Heh... you just blocked me on a near identical edit. Good work!

Richard Clegg (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


Except mine has just been reverted because I got the 3rd and 4th Viscounts confused! PhilMacD (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Venus of Hohle Fels[edit]

I'm not really sure how Wiki works. So, I'm posting my response to the message you sent me regarding my addition to the Venus of Hohle Fels here:

Hi Berlant,

Regarding your edit to the Venus of Hohle Fels, I find the sentence "Venus figurines were sculpted to personify the developmental stages of mushrooms as the mushrooms' mothers" difficult to understand. Could you simplify it?

I'm also worried that publication in Anistor may still count as original research. Are there any third-party sources to back up the mushroom link?

Thanks PhilMacD (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The article explains in detail exactly why prehistoric sculptors personified the developmental stages of mushrooms as the mushrooms' mothers. I have, however, changed the statement you found problematic to "Venus figurines were sculpted to personify the "vulvate volva" from which the mature mushroom's typically phallic stipe and cap emerged as the mushroom's mother. According to this theory, the practice was based on the documented and anciently widespread belief that mushrooms were hermaphroditic organisms comprising a phallic stipe and cap that emerged from a vulvate volva which together allowed the organism to reproduce parthenogenetically, rather than sexually."
As for the notion that the article is “original research,” based on my knowledge of the methods people have typically used to summarily reject anything that called their deeply rooted beliefs into question, claiming that a theory is “original research” is merely one such method. However, you and Wiki’s administrators,including my old friend Doug Weller, should recognize that Wiki is absolutely filled with assumptions, opinions, hypotheses, and other forms of “original research”. To wit, Wiki's entry for the Venus of Willendorf contains this statement: "Catherine McCoid and LeRoy McDermott hypothesize that the figurines may have been created as self-portraits."
Why might that be? Because it was published in Current Anthropology, and everyone knows that anything that Current Anthropology publishes is a proven fact. Gimme a break! Even the most stringently reviewed empirical sciences journals are absolutely filled with things that we now consider garbage, and Anthropology isn't even an empirical science -- though some anthropologists think it is because they use empirical methods for some things, and couch the resulting theories in jargonistic "technospeak."
In fact, Wiki contains a plethora of "original research" posing as facts, simply because supposed experts and their followers have been repeating those things ad nauseum as if they were facts, and Wiki's administrators apparently don't have the ability to evaluate the evidence and arguments comprising every theory theory for themselves -- even though this may be justified in some cases. Consequently, statements to the effect that the figurines in question were sculpted to depict women abstractly for pornographic, apotropaic or any other reasons are nothing but restatements of “original research” that have taken on the patina of factuality based on repetition and appeals to authority.
If the history of science teaches anything, it is that a theory’s validity doesn’t depend one iota on how many people believe or repeat it, or who does the repeating. A theory’s validity depends on its ability to explain the available evidence more logically, parsimoniously, instructively, and syncretically than its competitors -- especially if it can also explain in a similar manner the anomalies its competitors ignored or attempted to explain away as coincidences. As the theory I cited does exactly that, I am as confident as I can be that it will be accepted sooner or later, regardless of whether Wiki's administrators or anyone else does or does not accept it at this point in time.
If, however, Wiki's administrators insist on judging whether a theory is valid based on the number of people who believe and repeat it, who those people are, or where it was published, suffice it to say that Carl Ruck, a classics professor at Tufts, presented my interpretation of the Venus of Willendorf, which I presented years earlier in The Journal of Prehistoric Religion (Volume XIII, 1999, pp. 22-31), as his own on page p. 23 of “Sacred Mushrooms of the Goddess and the Secrets of Eleusis," and John Rush cited "Ruck’s" interpretation verbatim on page 8 of “The mushroom in Christian Art.”
As I stated above, however, it doesn't matter one iota who repeats a theory or how many times it is repeated: If it did, we'd all be walking around on a flat earth in a geocentric solar system. In summary, I suggests that people be allowed to evaluate the evidence and arguments underpinning my theory for themselves in the interest of science, rather than attempting to "sanitize" the entries in which I cited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berlant (talkcontribs) 14:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Berlant.
Thanks for your response. It might be helpful to read the policy on No original research. In no way am I making a judgement on the validity of the mushroom theory; I simply am not an expert in the area, and I am sure your knowledge here greatly outweighs my own. I'm very keen for you to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, so please don't be offended that I question a source. The point being, on Wikipedia, truth has to rest in the references, not the expert, and so it is important to check they are sound, and that means we have to rely on published third-party sources, not just, for example, blogs or twitter, where anyone can write anything.
I've tried to expand the article, and added more papers, including one of your own, but I wouldn't mind some more clarification (in the article) of your hypothesis. And perhaps you can improve my edits to the expanded 'Use' area too. Many thanks. PhilMacD (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I missed the recent addition of this to the article. If you look at Talk:Venus of Hohle Fels you'll see an earlier discussion on this. I don't think it belongs and I certainly don't think that the author of a paper should be adding it in this way, particularly after the earlier discussion. I don't see how anything is changed so I've removed it. I'll add that I don't think publishing in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology is sufficient for it to be here. If any of this gets serious attention from Egyptologists and archaeologists then what they say about it might be useful, but not until then. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I missed the old discussion on this. I would say it's fine for Berlant to be adding to these articles if the edits are WP:NPOV and fully sourced, but indeed, there's very little supporting evidence. It's a side reference, but the Journal of Pharmacology is peer-reviewed so citations from there would be fine, I believe, if not adding undue weight to a fringe theory. PhilMacD (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
My problem is that as Berlant himself is perhaps pointing out, not everything in a peer reviewed journal is a reliable source. If I could see evidence that the Egyptology in his article had been peer reviewed I'd feel better, but I'd also be surprised. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gautama Buddha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (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) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Utopia[edit]

Hello

Thank you for your assistance concerning the Utopia article, but the term "oligarchs" is wrongly applied in that context. In fact, Plato loathed the oligarchy in a very sound manner throughout his Republic, so it would be quite stupid of him to propose an oligarchical society in the same work. I may send you the paragraphs where he criticizes the oligarchical cultures. What he proposes is an aristocracy (government of the virtue), which is another kind of community, or a kingdom (that's why he is known for the idea of the philosopher king, not the idea of philosopher oligarch).

My alteration on the article was not vandalism, your assumption was a little snobbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melfra2 (talkcontribs) 21:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Melfra2,
Thanks for your response. I think you're talking about this edit? [2] The problem we have, as I understand it, is that Oligarchy, as it is currently defined, as "rule by the few" is correct for the Philosopher Kings...but that's not how Plato defined Oligarchy (see Plato's five regimes; he defined it as "rule by the wealthy few", or what we now know as Plutocracy. So that needs explaining in the article, I will try to get round to it.
Remember, I don't believe I ever called your edit vandalism, and I appreciate your contribution, so please remember to remain Civil. PhilMacD (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Williams article and unencyclopaedic and selective information[edit]

The information was removed as Wikipedia is not a commentary on votes or individual bills. The notable information on who voted what way on specific legislation only goes on the page relating to the Legislation as WIkipedia is not a collection of voting information and does not give single pieces of legislation or single "scores" from pressure groups such as stonewall undue prominence. Also the LD voting record on Tuition Fees is POV as it was only added to LD MPs and this was discussed when it was originally added as i found today when researching if this had been discussed before, The discussion can be found | here. So i stand by the removal and reversion of you reversion as the information is wholly against Encyclopaedic standards and does not belong on Wikipedia in the way it has been selectively added. Sport and politics (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting acknowledgment of acceptance of an edit by me which has rendered yours' nullified for better Wiki[edit]

Earlier, you had made an edit where you had used a link (natgeo) to cite some text. (I found out that YOU have done it using wikiblame, that's why I'm trying to take you into confidence). I've made another edit rendering yours' (?) to improve the Wikipedia:NPOV policy since the cited page discussed more about something (abandoning elderly) which was not the matter of discussion of the wikitext-to-be-cited. In fact, in my opinion, it could've represented a view (alas! if it already did to some in the mean time) which seemed biased which is unwarranted since we are taking about numbers of attendees only (for that, I've added another link). Thanks. -Rishidigital1055 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)