User talk:Doc Tropics

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 day are automatically archived to User:Doc Tropics/Archive One. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Welcome!

Hello, Doc Tropics, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Timrem 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

why did you penalize me?

You said I vandalized the page for God on wikipedia...but the only thing I did to that page was delete an act of massive vandalism ( in which someone replaced the entire article of GOD with a character from lost) and return the article to its previous state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaji13 (talk • contribsKaji13 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The original vandalism was reverted by a bot, and your first edit actually reintroduced the vandalism into the article, which is what I issued a warning for. I see that your second edit corrected the situation, so I assume there was just some confusion, and possibly an edit conflict. Sorry for any misunderstanding Doc Tropics 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you back?

Your name came up in a conversation recently, and I wondered what happened to you. Then I noticed you're back these past couple of days. Are you ready to cause some trouble? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi OM! I never stopped reading WP and following certain articles, but I needed a (very) long break from editing. Now I'm ready to start vandalizing editing articles again, and I've seen your name in my watchlist a lot. You've been doing good work  : ) Doc Tropics 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed the FA for Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, along with its being a featured article. You should have seen the crazies show up trying to have it revised to state that the event occurred about 6000 years ago. Well, some of these articles need serious vandalizing. And you should be an admin? Do you know how many editors you've mentored around here (I had to refuse your advances, because you know I'm not that kind of guy). LOL. Well, welcome back. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the C-T article make the front page is what really got me going again...and yeah, I read through its history just because I needed a good laugh one day. I realized though, that I have to leave the content of articles like that to the experts. I'm really just a well-intentioned layman who's not qualified to contribute except maybe on the talkpage. On the bright side though, there are a whole lot of other articles where some basic writing skills and an insistence on NPOV content is all that's required. Needless to say I'll still be stalking you around WP, waiting to pounce on your erratic ravings and denounce you to the nearest admin (assuming I can find one who's not already a member of your decadent intellectual cabal). Doc Tropics 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You should go to the P-T article that I was working on. There's some kid there who claims he's the leading expert on Wikipedia (does anyone read the Essjay situation), who's making a mess of an article that was getting pretty close to GA status. I need someone to vandalize his vandalization. I mean edit his good faith edits. Cough.  :) Just kidding for the edification of any stalkers. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert at Expelled

Awaiting your reply [1]. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talkpage. Doc Tropics 17:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, great to see you back! Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But, by the way[2], subscription-only links are fine for refs (if free ones aren't available), they're just not ok for external links. Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi G, are you serious? I've been away awhile, but were they always acceptable as refs, or is this a recent change? Because we were doing backflips at other articles to avoid sub-only refs. In fact, there seems to be lot of confusion about this point; where should I look to clarify this? But hey, it's good to "see" you again! Your name is another one that's popping up all over my Watchlist  : ) Doc Tropics 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is new. Some people have argued that we shouldn't link to subscription-only sources (I disagree, but we should warn people if we are), but that aside, the Chronicle is a paper periodical that will be available at many libraries. From that perspective it's the same as referencing any paper-only publication.

The basis behind that idea is WP:V. The Chronicle of Higher Education is a reliable source.

If you look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources, the fact that the issue isn't dealt with is instructive; neither is it mentioned at Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations. The one place where I am aware that subscription-only sites are dealt with is at Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration, but that's a different issue. Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and explanation Guettarda, your guidance is invaluable. It's somewhat frustrating that the topic isn't dealt with more specifically and clearly, but you helped make sense of it. I had clearly overlooked the fact that the source is ALSO available as a paper periodical, and I was only looking at the site that was referenced in our article. I went back and reverted my own changes, even though it bruised my tender ego to do so (lol). Doc Tropics 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy I could be of some help. Too many people are too attached to what they write and aren't really interested in feedback.

As for watchlists - I've pretty much given up on mine (happens when you have 7029 items on it). I've been pretty inactive for the last six months or so, otherwise it would be well past 7000 items. Guettarda (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you revert the evolution rather than science headline? I'm out of reverts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, but I usually check my watchlist frequently when I'm on. I was sorry to see your name come up at ANI, so I reckon I'll have to keep a closer eye on things Old Fish. Doc Tropics 04:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Irony

I wanted to point out the irony in your use of linking me to "wikilawyering" in a possible attempt to claim that I am wikilawyering. The page starts out with "Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other wikipedians' actions." The word pejorative means derogatory or belittling, which means those who use the terms are using a word with insulting connotations. So, in a sense, its the same line of offense as the one you attempt to prevent. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Ottava Rima responding to someone trying to help them understand what wikilawyering was with even further, grander wikilawyering. That's some quality irony right there. Redrocket (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Irony all around for everyone! Hooray! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ott, I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say through all that sputtering, but I do know that Durova and Luna Santin are two of the most thoroughly competent and professional admins on the project. The fact that you are harrassing both of them at the same time, in the same fashion, is a clear indication that you're in over your head. Just quit acting like a jerk and you won't have these problems....it really is as simple as that. Doc Tropics 05:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

So if "opponents" of Roger & Me say it's not a documentary, we should remove that category from that seminal, historic work of documentary filmmaking that's launched the career of the greatest political documentarian of the last 20 years? Tosh. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary. It's wrong, it's full of lies and it's a pile of crap. But it's still a documentary film, as defined by the genre. FCYTravis (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You are refering to Michael Moore as "the greatest political documentarian of the last 20 years"? Again, the reality is that Moore produces blatant propaganda, not documentaries, an issue I plan to deal with in the near future. Thanks for reminding me. Doc Tropics 20:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. I hate to tell you, but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seems to think he's a documentarian... they gave him something called the Academy Award for Best Documentary Film, for Bowling for Columbine. FCYTravis (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

People used to believe the earth was flat too. Did that make it flat? Doc Tropics 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We have sources that say the Earth is round. We have sources that say that Michael Moore is a documentarian. We have sources that say Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary. On Wikipedia, we reflect what reliable sources say, giving prominence to the mainstream view. FCYTravis (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reluctantly forced to admit that most people refer to this kind of crap as "documentary". It reinforces my view that most people are ignorant peasants who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but I will bow to the will of the masses. Doc Tropics 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to know what you think is a documentary, then. Every documentary film is a creation of a person or persons, and every documentary film consists of a series of choices made about which scenes to include, who to interview and what to shoot. That is inherently modifying reality to conform to the particular vision of the director. They can be more or less biased, but there is no such thing as a documentary film without a point of view. FCYTravis (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the documentary genre includes notable propaganda films, as in Triumph of the Will and Night Mail, and that use of either term doesn't imply agreement with the message being promoted by the film. However, in the current political context of the U.S. words get added layers of meanings, so I've not jumped into that debate. However, I did note that in trimming Caroline Crocker's tale you missed out essential elements directly related to Stein's claims,[3] so I've clarified these points. An examination what she taught in her lecture is informative.[4] All the best, . dave souza, talk 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your edits at Expelled, and thanks especially for taking the time to handle the material individually rather than simply reverting my efforts. I have no doubt that there will be lots of back-and-forth like this as we try to bring the article down to a reasonable size. All I can ask of other editors is that they keep in mind WP guidelines which state that an article should be no more than 50kb max (and 30kb is the recomended length). Expelled is currently near 150kb, so we obviously have a lot of work to do. I'm beginning to wonder if it will be possible to achieve that reduction through trimming, or if we will need to split out seperate articles like "Background of Expelled participants" or something similar. Regardless, thanks again for your good faith efforts and civility. Doc Tropics 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the response, these edits of mine tightened things a bit but slightly increased the length, appreciate your commenting on my more drastic action to split detail into a sub-article. The main article was 149 kb and has now come down to 122 kb so progress is being made. One thing about these guidelines is that they don't take account of referencing which has increased since the guidelines were set. The readable text, ignoring the references, is now about 68 kb, so we don't have that far to go. For comparison, a FA I've been involved in is at about 52 kb readable text, which to me is large but tolerable. Obviously a more concise article is best, unless there's a really good reason otherwise. Anyway, your help with this contentious subject is much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 13:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Tamil language

Hi Doc (hope you don't mind being addressed this way). I certainly see that you're working to improve the article. I fully agree with you about the first few paragraphs. That happened because of edits to accommodate POVs. In fact, we need to verify all sources given that there has been deliberate misquoting to push POVs. It would be great if you could provide a neutral perspective to the dating issue after verifying the citations. Let me ask Arvind for quotes from the cited sources once he's back online. That should help. In fact, one of the cited sources, Herman Tieken, has been challenged here. But, despite this, people continue to put too much weight on that. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Doc" is fine, but makes me feel the need to point out that I have no actual Ph.D. in any field, it's simply been my nickname since I was young, so I naturally chose it as a userename here. I agree that there is some POV influence, and problems caused by unsourced or poorly sourced assertions. This actually seems to be the case in several related articles and some of it is contradictory. I would expect most of the references to be available through a good University library, but I don't have easy access to one. I would be very interested in seeing exact quotes, which could help us immensely. On the bright side, the technical portions of the article seem quite good and I'd like to bring the rest of the article up to that level of quality. I look forward to working with you there. Doc Tropics 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Will ask him. Let me assure you my co-operation to you in this endeavour. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Spinosaurus

Hi, Doc;

Thanks, no big deal; you must have come through just as I was saving my edit. J. Spencer (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Spin-off

Thank you for the explanation. I regret that I might be a little rash. The spin-off I made is in People presented in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/ In a second I will post in the main film article talk page asking for methods to simplify and shorten the section. You are more than welcome to share your opinions there. Thanks again! Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Prussian Blue (duo)

those weren't actually weasel words, but appropriate modifiers, because participation was probably not universal

That's true but saying that some of their new neighbors did not welcome them is the same as saying that some of their new neighbors did welcome them. See WP:WEASEL, which states:

With weasel words, one can imply a statement is true when it may be no truer than its inverse. For example, an editor might preface the statement "Montreal is the best city in the world" with a disclaimer: "some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world". This is true: some people do say that Montreal is the best city in the world. The problem is that the reverse is true as well (some people say Montreal is not the best city in the world, and some go further and say that it is the worst)

For An Angel (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I went so long without responding to you, I was off-wiki for a week. In any event, the current wording (as of this post) seems neutral and accurate so I'd stick with that. Thanks for bringing this to my talkpage though, it's always appreciated. Doc Tropics 14:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you stick around for a few minutes!!!! We need you around these parts. Lazy ass.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh. What I lack in consistency I make up for in sheer foolishness, so at least I've got that going for me. What I haven't got going right now is a lot of time for things that need focus and concentration, so most of my editing has been of a casual anti-vandal type nature. It seems like I missed a certain amount of interesting activity recently, and I'm still reading to catch up on current events. Feel free to drop me pointers to anything that might merit attention or yield some amusement  : ) Doc Tropics 01:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin

I understand the feelings behind your comment, but it seems to be that ArbCom wasn't fully involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Orangemarlin_and_other_matters. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually just reading that, having posted my comment before I found it. I'm still trying to figure out what's going on, but apparently so is everyone else... including ArbCom. This would be laughable if it weren't hurting a very valuable contributor, but something has gone badly wrong here. I'll certainly be watching for further developments and hoping for some clarification. Thabnks for the pointer. Doc Tropics 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:

You appear to be a very friendly and patient guy. I appreciate your effort to ease my feeling at the deletion of the article, even though I regretfully say that I can't agree with your point on the matter. The existence of the article is accepted to some of Koreans as a 'shameful disgrace' (I can read it here and at Korean wikipedia), but I think that is clear cut of South Korean history today. Compared with some silly exmaple; every episode of Grey's anatomy is created at Wikipedia (Wikipedia is not a TV guide though), and the article is deleted because the term is not much known to English speaking world. Regardless of all these, the information is quite useful, so that's why I (brusquely) requested Gwen to copy the content to my talk page. Anyway, thank you for your time and sort of the meditaion. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Improvements necessary to keep Rosa Parks as a Featured Article

As with most articles promoted so long ago, this article does not currently meet the Featured Article criteria. Since you have been a major contributor to the article, I would appreciate your help to bring this article up to the current standards. Please don't take this as an insult to the article, as it is well-written and there shouldn't be a lot of work necessary.

I have listed my concerns on the article's talk page. I would like to get this up to the current standards without going through a Featured Article review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you care?

Talk:Intelligent_design#Inappropriate_use_of_sources lists you as the last person commenting (6/28, Saturday). I'm attempting to aggressively archive the talk page to trim the page down. Do you mind if I archive this?

ID

Doc Tropics - I've done a revision of the lead and overview for the ID page, here. mostly it's shuffling things around for tone and structure, plus a couple of points I'd like to delete, and one that I'd like to repatriate, but can't quite figure out where, yet. tell me if you don't think this makes for a more neutral read. if I can get your feedback (and the feedback of the others I've copied this notice to), then I'll take it over and offer it as a suggestion on the ID page. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I'm concerned about the high POV of these edits. What do you think? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Thanks

Wonderful! Hopefully we'll be able to work out this and many other situations. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you stick around????

We need people who stand up to the POV pushing crowd like you did here. LOL. I think mammals rule, but that might be POV too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the nice things you said about me at my talk page, resulting from talk:atheism. The positive feedback from a more experienced editor means a lot to me! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're back? Cool! Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ali

What do you mean by POV and personal opinion? It is an established fact that Ali(a.s.) was cursed and there are traditions to prove this; many of such traditions could be found in Siayah Sittah(the seven correct(authentic) books of prophetic traditions according to Sunnis), so even sunnis can't deny it. For sake of reference here is one such tradition Sahih Muslim: Book 31:Number 5924.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In re: your post: no worries. It's on my watchlist already, as I've seen it is one of the more vandalism- and POV-prone pages. RavShimon (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still going on, so I've taken it to Wikipedia:ANI#Ali. RavShimon (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I really am glad to know that I helped. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, for your wishes. Its helpful when one gets appreciated by community members, thanx for sa--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)me.

		The Socratic Barnstar
		In recognition of your cool head and your efforts—here and in other places—to find solutions to conflicts and and to resolve difficulties amicably. RavShimon (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In re: your comment on my talkpage: I'm interested in whatever it takes to make this encyclopaedia as fine as it can get; let me know wherever I can be of service. RavShimon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That was my edit you've just undone on "An Inconvenient Truth".

I was quite attached to it, seeing as it's already a compromise on what I was trying to do previously. Which part of the MOS should I be looking at? 213.122.26.223 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your question to my talkpage, I really appreciate the courtesy. However, I'm going to copy your comment to Talk:An Inconvenient Truth and reply so that it will be properly "on record" and others can participate. Doc Tropics 03:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.26.223 (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied the original and in 2 minutes I'll have at least a semi-coherent reply. Doc Tropics 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A small clarification and a question about Istanbul vs. Tehran

Thank you for you interest in resolving Iran in the middle ages section dispute. I wanted to inform you that I had already contributed to it but my edits were reverted (with reliable sources). In order to avoid an edit war, I opened a new WP:CONS and followed the dispute resolution process. I am there to balance this section. I care about neutrality. You can check the talk page for links to my edits or the Iran's history log to check how that section evolved. In another issue, I checked about the largest city in the middle-east and it turned out to be Istanbul (UN and other sources) but you reverted my edit. Can you explain to me why? The edit summary was a little bit vague. Regards. Bestofmed (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

Regarding Istanbul, it's lede clearly states that it is the second metropolitan area in Europe. This fact is repeated, with references, in List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population. Wikipedia clearly considers Istanbul part of Europe, not the Middle East. It's therefor not possible to claim it as both the largest city in the Middle East and the second largest in Europe. If you wish to assert otherwise, you can't just say you have refs, you have to show them, and they need to be RS. Then you need to change WP policy regarding Istanbul's location. After that it's no problem at all to change the article the way you want. Doc Tropics 03:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Turkey is a country that belongs to Middle East (The middle-east spans along three contents, check the Middle-East article if you want). Moreover, Turkey is part of the core middle-east. Istanbul's article states that Istanbul is the largest city proper in Europe. Even using Wikipedia articles, Istanbul is clearly the largest in the Middle-East. Istanbul has a population of more than 12 millions and a an area of 706.9 sq mi. Tehran, on the other hand, has a population of a less than 12 millions and an area of 265 sq mi. So using both criteria, it is clear which one is the largest. City Mayors list Cairo as the largest city, followed by Istanbul than Tehran (here). Encarta too, it states that Cairo is the largest city in the Middle-East but to avoid articles' contradiction the first seems more consistent. Whatever the case, it is clear that Tehran is not the largest city in the Middle-East (neither by population nor by area). Bestofmed (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

Since this discussion is primarily about the article it really belongs on that talkpage rather than mine, thanks. Doc Tropics 04:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for spamming your talk page. I moved the discussion here. Regards. Bestofmed (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and it wasn't spam at all, it just needs to be discussed on the proper talkpage so that others can be aware and participate. However, it's now rather late in my time zone and my day starts early, so my response will be delayed. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Atheism FA

Hi Doc. Please see the section I just started on the Atheism talk page. The article was featured on June 8, 2007, and the wording I added is from that featured version. If you have an issue with that, please explain there. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of quotation from Article Ali

Following quotaion is being removed continously by few users(especially one):

“ One morning Muhammad went out wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying). ” — Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5955

All editors are envited to have discussion on this issue.

Thanx

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for all your efforts. Doc I think hadith is now rightly placed with appropriate explanation. One more thing which I just found that reference # 26 "Fatima Bint Muhammad". USC. Retrieved 2008-12-19., this link seems to hold no relevant information(at least to the place/section where it is quoted). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You can call me Faiz. Recently I have grown too skeptical about references it seems few editors include anything in the name of reference. Even I was thinking to cross check all the references(section wise) for their status, relevance, etc. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

great job Doc. One suggestion, when you remove any dead reference put citation needed template. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus

Thank you for the sober and refreshing, freethinking support. I'm sure the person who reverted the Mithras reference I added (three seconds after I did so) is a believing (brainwashed) (apologies) Christian, offended, embarrased, and afraid, that Mithraism so closely resembles Christianity. Again -- thanks! Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I went through similar, very extensive, debates with our Christmas article, specifically regarding the date. Historical data and editorial concensus both support your position. Doc Tropics 01:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Doc Tropics. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Franco Crackpotto

It was worth a trie .. I think a broader group of editors need to weigh in, still. Yes, it is very odd how people seized on your reasonable comment in such a perverse way, I hope admins watching this will take note of that. Do you think we should make requests for comment, concerning either deleting the article or how to improve it? The question is, what would an acceptable rewrite look like? If we can imagine one, we should not delete. If we cannot imagine one, we have to delete ... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ali: Article cleanup and revamp

Dear editor,

Few of us have concluded that this article needs severe cleanup and revamp. Intial steps of this have been started and as of now are underway one task.

• We'll take one task at time, have a review after its complition and move to another,
• One or two members will do the actual task while others can do periodic review and correction,
• Group of editors can take a task and devide it section wise between themselves
• During this process any major revamp or re-writing of article will be avoided.

You are invited for this activity.

Talk:Ali#Article_cleanup_and_revamp

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam Moran

Thanks for speaking up.

Actually, the story is as follows: Sam Moran was born in Sydney, but his family moved to Wagga Wagga when he was very young (under two) and he grew up there, so the newspaper reporters mistakenly thought he was born there. I tried once (a while ago, when I was new on here) to edit that accordingly and was kicked back by the fact that there is a "reliable source" (namely, those same newspaper articles) saying that he was born in Wagga Wagga. So even though I know the truth, what can I do about it? I'm not about to ask his mother for a copy of his birth certificate so I can demonstrate his place of birth for something of such low significance to him.

I generally leave Wikipedia signed in permanently on my computer and my wife, apparently, seeing the article bears mistaken information, attempted to change it, not realising it'd show up as having come from me. The whole "we need a source for that" business doesn't really matter to her, because she takes statements about Sam Moran very seriously. See, he's her brother. RavShimon (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think Sam would bother contacting the paper to have a correction printed, let alone two years after the original articles; he's pretty laid back—and very busy—and, quite frankly, couldn't care less whether Wikipedia says he was born in Sydney or in Wagga Wagga. I personally hate seeing incorrect information up on the site as a matter of principle, but I've come to realise that right now there's nothing I can do about it.

I'm not sure why you seem to think you "owe me one"; I don't recall having done anything particular for you. Nevertheless, your generosity of spirit is appreciated. RavShimon (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge

OK, I'll remember that, thanks. The links in the merge notices do both point to Talk:Alcoholism. I was taken aback that an article on such a notable topic could be so poor. I thought at first it must have been vandalised from an earlier version, but I think it has never been better. Fences and windows (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Genetically modified food article

responded to your post in discussion would like to fix up and had some disagreement with your changes so reverted them until there is further discussion. I explained why as well.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted replies to responsesMatsuiny2004 (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Genetically modified food article is a disaster of POV and poor writing. Doc Tropics 05:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So why not tag it?

I will say you should look at the citations used in future development yourself, they do not belong on that page.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll have the time to contribute. You might want nominate it at Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. In the off chance it makes it, it might attract some positive attention. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. It sure couldn't hurt to have a dozen experienced editors work through that page. Thanks G. Doc Tropics 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I appologize for coming off as harsh as I did yesterday doc tropics, i assume good faith in your edits. Please look at my posts in discussion that give my ideas for how to improve the article. I will also mention I did not create the controversy section which I would agree is a mess. There is a suggestion on what could be done with that as well.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Talk:American#therefore:_undone

Please excuse my not acknowledging your support there at this time. There are some broad matters of policy in medias contention :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: The disambiguation posse has been summoned to American (apparently to aid Cuchullain‎ in his brave defense of the guidelines about the hatnote lol). NOTE: This is not to suggest that you get further involved in this. Who has time? :) Well, I do ... but not for one page — for constructing a general policy that dab-cleaning guidelines don't trump every other consideration. American seems to have some other considerations.

NOTE: I do not intend to summon people to vote in any straw polls, but in this instance Cuchullain responded directly beneath your comment, quickly dismissing all issues with a terse wave of the hand. But see the talk page. lol Or not. Cheers, Proofreader77 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wave

How have you been? Good to see you back in the fray, yourownself! KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

creationism

You're welcome! (my alternative was to suggest that one be black and the other white) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc Tropics. You have new messages at Pearll's sun's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 02:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion!

Thank you! I initially responded to what he had said, but in looking through the edit history, saw that a couple of other people had simply removed what was said, and so I followed suit. :) Farsight001 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility

This is not acceptable, and as posted on WP:ANI I would've blocked you for it at the time - however I'm not going to do it so long after the event as it would probably be more punitive than preventative. Thanks, Black Kite 10:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd comment that I realize you were provoked by Giano's comments, which were unacceptable, but I suggest you follow Giano's lead and be more subtle in your replies and avoid overt expletives, even misspelled.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Which part of my post was ubacceptable? Then we will debate it. Giano (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am placing a 12 hours block per no personal attacks, one that will expire 24 hours from the time of this comment. There is no excuse for that. None. The purpose of this block is deterrence, to prevent future incidents of the same sort. The edit was egregious. It cannot be allowed to pass without consequence, or else such editing may become habitual. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming here to make essentially the same caution... totally unacceptable edit. Please don't do that again. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

{{[[Template:The "offense" I'm being blocked for is history at this point, having occured yesterday (at least for me), and this block is clearly punitive rather than preventative as I never had any intention of pursuing or repeating the discussion in question. Please note that in general I am a productive editor with over 7K useful contributions and a history of congenial cooperation with a variety of editors from around the world. Does a single poorly chosen phrase really warrant this reaction? Doc Tropics 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)|The "offense" I'm being blocked for is history at this point, having occured yesterday (at least for me), and this block is clearly punitive rather than preventative as I never had any intention of pursuing or repeating the discussion in question. Please note that in general I am a productive editor with over 7K useful contributions and a history of congenial cooperation with a variety of editors from around the world. Does a single poorly chosen phrase really warrant this reaction? Doc Tropics 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)]]}}

Question: Do you now think that choice of phrase was inappropriate, or do you stand behind it? Why or why not? Do you plan to repeat such poorly chosen phrasing? Those are the metrics that will decide for me anyway whether it's likely that you will continue to be disruptive in future. Let me know. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate, you say in your unblock request you "never had any intention of pursuing or repeating" and that the phrase was "poorly chosen". Why was it poorly chosen? That's the crux of it for me. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply: The phrase was clearly inappropriate because it was very obviously an uncivil personal attack on another editor and my only real defense is that it was waaaay past my bedtime and I should have quit editing a couple hours earlier; my judgement was extremely poor. There were obviously better ways to express myself without resorting to the particular word(s) which touched all this off. While I clearly felt provoked, there was no cause or justification to characterize another editor in such terms. Lar, I can assure you in all honesty that I have no plans or intentions to repeat this episode....I far prefer editing articles to playing politics and I'll definitely confine myself to more productive activites in future. Doc Tropics 16:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let me know directly if the unblock didn't work or whatever. As a note it's important that concerned editors make their opinions known on important matters, please don't look at this as discouragement from doing so. It's just that the manner of speaking is important too. Something we all can do better at, and I include myself in that list. Best. ++Lar: t/c 16:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Please consider redacting/revising this [5]. There must be a better way of wording that. ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I had forgotten it was there. I've revised it appropriately. Doc Tropics 17:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to Lar's comments, I strongly suggest that you also consider whether your choice of expletive terminology is of itself in violation of policy. Had you inferred the other editor was a Jew, a black, or a woman (although, by implication, you did), as a term of insult your block would most likely have been much more prompt and of a considerably longer term. I doubt if you consider yourself homophobic, but ignorance is no defence, and if you do find yourself in conflict and begin searching for an analogy with which to deprecate the other parties worthiness I very strongly urge you not to use phrases that denigrate other peoples sexual orientation or gender. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and comment which I know is well-intended. The specific issue you are concerned with appears to me a misunderstanding, although there is no question that the misunderstanding is a direct result of the words I used and I accept the responsibility for that. Please allow me to clarify because this point is somewhat important to me. I used the word "cocksucker" as a vulgar, offensive, insulting term, but it was never, in any way, intended to be construed as a commentary regarding another editor's gender, sexual orientation, activities, or preferences. I assure you I have absolutely no interest in such things because they have no bearing on our on-wiki activities. Given my personal background (which as you may have surmised is not formally academic) in an urban American environment, the term was never used that way, and in all honesty it never occured to me that it might be interpreted that way. Not that I was thinking too deeply about how it might be interpreted when I hit the Save button at 2:00 a.m., if I was I wouldn't have Saved it. Please note I am not making any effort to rationalize or excuse my use of inappropriate language, I just want to be very clear that that particular aspect of my wording was never intended. In closing, let me simply assure you that if you ever met me in real life you would certainly acknowledge there is no chance of homophobia on my part, really. Thanks again for coming to my talkpage to discuss your concerns. Sincerely, Doc Tropics 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. It is good that you want to stand up for yourself. Civility does not require that you absorb hostility without response. If you feel yourself getting frustrated with somebody, it is quite often helpful to directly say to the other person, "You are upsetting me by doing ..., which I believe is improper because ..." This makes your objection clear, and draws attention to the other guy's behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

barnstar for your good efforts .

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		dear Doc I'm glad to appreciate ur tireless involvement in tamilnadu related articles . Kindly accept this Barnstar for your efforts --Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 20:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I am deeply flattered and gratified. Thank you! It has certainly been an interesting day.... Doc Tropics 20:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc Tropics. You have new messages at Pearll's sun's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 17:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)