User talk:Doc Tropics

This user supports FloNight for the Arbitration Committee.

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)

Re: External Link Spamming

If you'd be willing to look into that, I'd appreciate it. :) I probably could, but I'm swamped with all sorts of things, this week, and more than likely wouldn't get to it promptly. But if you don't, I'll eventually get around to it. Let me know if you need anything, too. Luna Santin 08:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: oops

Hi Doc. I've seen you around on vandal patrol too. Thanks for spotting the mistake on Harriet Tubman, sorry about that. I'm glad someone else found and fixed it. Best, Gwernol 12:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU

One, I really like your Wiki i.d. Two, I know you were doing routine vandal patrol. Still, I want to again say-- THANK YOU. TonyCrew 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Hi, Doc. In this edit, did you intend to remove the paragraph that begins "Some disagree with the idea of government involvement..."? It doesn't seem to fit with your edit summary. Powers ^T 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. Not only was that not intentional, I have no idea how it happened. How the heck did I delete an entire unrelated para in a different section? Oh well, it's fixed now; thanks again. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because it was added in the edit previous to yours, which also added the erroneous text that I think you intended to remove. Or something. Powers ^T 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Selig Percy Amoils

I have not looked into all the ins and outs of this, but I have restored the material I added, which is properly sourced, and warned Paul venter not to delete it again.[1] [2]--Runcorn 13:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Somalia socks

Hi - I've just seen your message to WP:ANI - does that solve the problem? Thanks Martinp23 10:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha - I'm glad it's sorted. About responsiveness - I think that it's just that most of us despise the orange banner once you get one or two not-so-flattering messages, so the best way is just to deal with it! But then again, I'm guessing, having been only made an admin yesterday :) Thanks Martinp23 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Evolution

I agree that the discussion is not relevant to improvement of the article and is unproductive at best. After evaluating the discussion, I did decide to archive it. For future reference, archival is easy: just copy-and-paste the relevant section(s) to the archival page. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Moving can only be used if you wish to archive the entire page at once. There are some advantages and disadvantages of using copy-and-paste or move, but I prefer copying and pasting for several reasons. You may be interested in Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Child pornography

Why did you remove a legitimate contribution from the "Child pornography" article with a blatantly false edit description?

However, real legal practice, popular sentiment and political positions stray far from this apparently clear-cut decision

You say it's unsourced, but it is nonsense, because that text itself is a refernce to a source! You say it's POV, but it's a sourced expert statement and thus doesn't meet the Wikipedia definition of POV. You say it's link spam, but it's a nonsensical claim, because it's a reference to a sourced statement which is directly relevant to the subject under discussion!

Please explain your actions, how they add to the quality of the article and how they correspond to the Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance for the explanations. Paranoid 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paranoid, I reviewed the recent edit history of Child pornography, and I'll try to address your concerns as best I can. You added the section "Legal Support" which was nothing but an advertisement for a specific lawyer. Next, you inserted two seperate links to the lawyer's webpage, along with a rather POV statement on the subject. The links clearly qualified as "spam" since they linked to a purely commercial, self-promotional site. Trying to use that site as a reference for your POV really isn't acceptable since the attorney can't be considered a reliable source...he clearly has a strong financial interest in presenting his particular POV. In short, I removed your changes because I felt that they reduced the overall quality of the article and called its reliability into question. Please note that two other editors have also reverted your changes with Edit Summaries indicating the content really isn't acceptable. If you honestly feel that your material would strengthen the article we can discuss that on its talkpage, but the way the material was originally presented simply isn't suitable to an encyclopedia. Finally, your reference to my Edit Summary as "blatantly false" seems to indicate a certain lack of good faith. My summary was clear, concise, and honest. There's no need to take a combative approach to this situation...my only personal interest is in maintianing the overall quality and credibility of WP articles, and I certainly hope we share that goal. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Fire

Your recent edit to Fire (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 06:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I’m afraid, AVBot, that your revert was incorrect in this case; I restored Doc Tropic’s edit. Could you let your programmer know? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Knowledge Seeker, that's the second time the bot has mistaken me for a vandal. Must be my personality? :) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

BLP warning

Thank you very much.--Runcorn 09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And amen to your sentiments.--Runcorn 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

KC is female

I changed your comment accordingly...JoshuaZ 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Firefly/Creationist Reference

D. Nice catch on that nice quote from Firefly. Captures the creationists quite perfectly.--Roland Deschain 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

unsigned support

It looks like you forgot to sign your support note (used up too many brain cells counting pages, maybe?) so I signed it for you. You may want to replace with your own sig though. Cheers. -- nae'blis 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's only moderately embarrassing. I've done worse. I'm just not going to discuss it here :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

link and section

The link is Wikipedia_talk:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) The text is Perhaps some of the people here might want to look at the way Thomas Aquinas dealt with presenting opposing ideas in Summa.--There's a good PD edition at [1] --He set forth his view, encapsulated the opposing view in as strong a group of arguments as he could devise (often clearer than any actual argument to be found) and then explained why it was wrong point by point. It was his book, so he stopped there, but when he presented this material in oral debate there were several more rounds, and I'm sure things did not stay quite so controlled. But I suggest that the key to a useful debate is to limit the number of rounds, or it continues forever.

There is a problem however which was not applicable to his subject--the existence of verifiable facts (as contrasted with matters commonly agreed on.) If there is a difference in the standard of what constitutes validity, it is hard to make a direct argument on a point. Evolutionists normally do not do well in oral debate, because their opponents can attack the validity of any one scientific argument in the matrix, and claim that any doubt about any one of them destroys the evolutionist argument--and there are so many scientific theories to attack, as compared to what their opponents will find, where at the end there is nothing solid to attack, only the religious view of the universe and its purpose.

What is the point of pages such as this? To present the arguments in contrast as a summary? Yes. To present all the arguments? Impossible. To give the creationists a place to argue that will keep them off the evolution pages? Laughable. To keep the beginning skeptics from trolling on the religion pages? Equally laughable.

The problem is NPOV, which does not permit an argument on a particular point to develop its logic. More exactly, its NPOV as interpreted, which dictates that every biology article must contain a part for the arguments of those who doubt biology as an epistemological method. It should rather be NPOV for the encyclopedia as a whole. It should be sufficient to say that "This entire line of argument is not accepted by most biologists--to see their argument, see their pages such as X Y and Z," (deliberately worded as the inverse).

There remain some particular arguments, such as those based on entropy, or the validity of carbon dating, where the discussion is focused enough that a single article or group can contain it, but they are few.

To return now to the head of this talk page (Ungtss 13:14, 12 Jan 2005):

  1. the parallel approach requires a broader canvas than a WP article
  2. discussions based on a particular piece of evidence will fail because the evidence or its meaning is in most cases disputed
  3. discussions based on neutral facts are obviously impossible, for there are no neutral facts.

In practice, the best defense of creationism is by the groups who for their own purposes simply ignore extra-biblical evidence as irrelevant to the meaning of the world. The best proof of evolution is the success in applying the scientific method to other undisputed areas, and the induction that it is valid here. It is much more satisfying to learn some biology, and some religion, rather than dispute between the two. You can then believe what you choose, and your choice will rarely be on purely rational grounds, but you will also have learned something about different methods of human discourse. DGG 05:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)DGG 06:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it as soon as the link turned blue, and I've already made an initial response...very brief to start. I'm interested in seeing more discussion :) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Admn. Noticeboard

I have another question, can you look? Thanks.Kiyosaki 07:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you look at the page, and the Talk for Israeli Apartheid, and see what this is all about? Please. Thanks.Kiyosaki 08:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

When all the reverts violate the entire page of Do's/Don'ts of Help:Reverting is that not bad-faith? What is the technical definition of it? Can you look at the content of the issue and Talk? Thanks. Take a look. The issues are never addressed, they are delayed, delayed, then I get personally attacked. You will see that the issues are never addressed and many of the Talk sections are left hanging with no responses. Is not responding an act of good faith? I can't see that. Can you tell me what "bad faith" means here technically? After reveiwing the page, and Talk, can you give me your opinion?Kiyosaki 08:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If people don't "get involved" then the result is a team of allies that violates WP:OWN, and the article isn't vetted correctly. Wikipedians need to look into the whole thing, the conduct especially. PS Dispute Resolution says: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." I am the one who is getting reverted, not the other way around. I don't get how Admns. can act in ways that violate everything I read about correct conduct. Kiyosaki 08:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Evo Talk

I have done my share of battling with the creationists off and on in different places on the internet over the last few years. The problem is, they just come up with the same stupid arguments over and over based on complete ignorance. Once in a while I am able to get one to come around and realize what is going on. But these are few and far between. Most of them end up thinking I am Satan incarnate for telling them that the earth is more than 6000 years old. I do not know why I bothered with the irritant tonight, but I think I made a tiny bit of progress. I should have directed him to the Creation Wiki I suppose. Some of them there are embarassed with their more obnoxious and ignorant bretheren who end up haunting regular Wikipedia with their inane comments over and over and over. But I felt more charitable today or whatever so I gave it a try. Probably did no good whatsoever. Maybe I might compile an FAQ page on the issue to direct them to.

I will also say that on all of these issues, including the introduction, I will usually bow and defer to biologists like yourself, since I am a physical scientist with only cursory knowledge. However, I want to help stave off these fundamentalist nuts because if they overrun evolutionary theory, then they come after the big bang theory or stellar evolution or redshift theory or plate tectonics or whatever other theory they feel steps on their belief in biblical inerrancy. So I figure I can fight them over there in biology, or fight them on my turf. I would rather fight them as soon as they poke their heads up than wait until they have overrun a good chunk of science. And maybe, just maybe, one or two of them might learn a little bit of science in the process whether they mean to or not.--Filll 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I think my sig and a gentle jibe at physicists have mislead you. I don't have a degree in biology! I'd hate for anyone to think I'm pretending to one because I, too, defer to the experts in these matters. My main contributions are actually Anti-Vandalism (and I've got Big bang on my watchlist too, along with many others) and minor cleanup efforts. It's only recently I've gotten involved in the controversies because I'm annoyed at how often the same thing pops up, and how much effort goes into explaining basic concepts to people that have no interest in actually learning what the simplest words mean. Argh, it's been a long day and you can tell I've exceeded my threshhold on this one...

Now remember, a physiscist is (almost) every bit as respectable as a biologist, don't let anyone tell you different :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reign of the sci-fi geeks

You know, with your calculations, I think I owe Thatcher now. At last. I can retire and give up this life of crime.

Ah, and great notes on the noticeboard today :) Shell ^babelfish 08:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries - anytime vandals and other various forms of baddies come screaming for your head, that's a sign that you're doing a great job. There's a great deal of trolling to the Admin noticeboards so anyone who spends time there gets an expert bullshit radar. Shell ^babelfish 01:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

When are you standing for Admin?

I see you around all the time now, doing helpful things. It may be time. If you don't already have a bunch of co noms, let's talk, drop me an email. If you do, let me know when? (oh, and "This user supports FloNight for the Arbitration Committee." too but I'm not big on bumper stickers) ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me tell you something: If you're going to wake up in the morning, log in while the coffee is still brewing, and find you have a new message...this is really a nice message to start the day with. Thanks Lar, coming from you, that really means a lot; I'll send an email. I had avoided the Userbox wars completely, and intentionally sidestepped this summer's signature controversies, but I just couldn't resist the darn bumper-sticker. Even tho' I support others besides Flo, I managed to limit myself to just one. Thanks again for the message, it really made my day! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Darn, I'm not the first one to have this idea. I've appreciated your work for a while. Should you want a co-nom sometime drop me a note.  :) Antandrus (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks hugely for the vote of confidence. I have more to learn before I'm ready, but I'll take you up on that offer when I am.  : ) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You've got a supporter in me should you ever have an RfA. -Severa (!!!) 08:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

false accusation

define 'vandalism' — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS (talk • contribs)

I have responded on the vandal's (not a vandal, just slightly misguided) editor's takpage. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

blueface

hey hey hey. I admit not all of my contributions have bin exactly as formalicized as you'd like it, but there's no need to pull out the brass knuckles!

and I quote: "do you really want to go there?"

y'know, I've tried to stop doing it, because I do mean to make a positive contribution to wikipedia, but this THING inside me...I want to escape, to escape from myself! but it's impossible. I can't escape, I have to obey it. I have to run, run...endlessly. I want to escape, to get away! always, always, always!, except when I do it, when I...then I can't remember anything. And afterwards I see these comments and read what I've done, and read, and read...did I do that? But I can't remember anything about it! but who will believe me? who knows what it's like to be me? how I'm forced to act...how I must, must...don't want to, must! Don't want to, but must! I can't go on! I can't...I can't...

so, please get off my back over one little observation on the usual state of affairs in Hollywood. if it means that much to you, at least catch me on something that makes sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS (talk • contribs)

It sounds like it's past time to adjust your meds. I appreciate humor as much as anyone, and probably more than most. However, "jokes" need to be limited to talkpages and edit summaries (feel free to review mine, I've got lots); it is totally inappropriate to insert false statements into articles, even when it seems funny. I reviewed your Contrib History, and you do make useful contributions here. That's why I warned you rather than reporting you. Still, the number of "nonsense" and "vandalism" warnings on your page are disturbing. In fact, I've never seen a regular editor with so many warnings...you've got more than a lot of IP talkpages, and that takes some effort. How does this sound: I'll put away my brass knuckles if you'll get a firm grip on your 'urges' and keep them under control. Is that fair? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

mea oblige (if I know my latin)

thanks. you just sounded a bit too much like my DARE cop after I'd just...but that's a different story entirely. as a matter of fact, I am in the process of adjusting my meds with my psychiatrist right now.

also, although I know it wasn't exactly true, I think you could easily defend the view that the screenwriting business in Hollywood tends towards the meretricious (see Barton Fink), and that was actually meant to be serious social commentary (though the style was rather informal, and I know you always say opinions are invalid)

so, I'll try to keep my urges of vandalism confined to the real world. as I said above, most of these 'vandalisms' are merely my idle comments on the subject at hand, without the least of malicious intentions

P.S.--I look upon my many warnings as a red badge of merit; the more mistakes we make, the more we learn from them. look how much I've learned from my mistakes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS (talk • contribs)

My personal POV about Hollywood is so dim it resembles a Brown dwarf, but opinions really don't belong in articles, just verifiable facts. While it's certainly important to learn from our mistakes, there are some easier ways to do it than collecting warnings. I really wouldn't have addressed you so firmly (perhaps even harshly?) if your page wern't so littered with those red tags. They make it difficult to distinguish between a troublesome vandal and an honest editor with an errant sense of humor. Since I appreciate your dialogue, let me make another offer: the next time you're tempted to comment in an article like that, post your comment on my talkpage instead, along with a link to the article. I can always use a good laugh, and it will save you some difficulties in the long run. Thanks for engaging in discussion rather than just ranting at me...rants tend to get boring after a while (and I've collected several, see above). Good luck with your efforts and let me know if I can help. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiBreak

Thank for you for the note! Just busy in RL life — nothing serious, thankfully. Great working with you and look forward to working together in the future! -Severa (!!!) 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy and Riverdale Country School

I positively know that Kennedy attended Riverdale Country School in the Bronx, but I don't know how to provide a citation for this fact. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia requires so many citations and references. I know many other facts about Kennedy's tenure in the Bronx, but it is difficult for me to prove the authenticity of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony22 (talk • contribs)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For being a well-rounded and dilligent editor. Keep it up! OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Playing games?

You can play whatever game you like. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit cryptic. You must be refering to my recent comment "defending" User:standonbible? I certainly didn't mean to sound snippy or critical of you, and I hope it didn't sound that way. I was trying to highlight how polite and reasonable SOB is compared to many of the editors who have "contributed" (feh!) there recently. I was also trying to be humorous, and sometimes that doesn't translate very well. I've apparently offended you, and I apologize for that; I respect you and appreciate your many efforts. If it was my defense of SOB that got your dander up, then please accept my apology; If that wasn't it, please tell me what the heck did : ) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, and no problem. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer

I posted a comment here, but came late to the discussion, and it might be overlooked. I am extremely interested in volunteering to assist at DYK, in whatever capacity a non-admin might help. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that you had. I'm not intending on using a clerk to do my user talk messaging, but certainly ALoan, Gurubrahma are reluctant to do DYK and message userpages, so you could contact them to see if they would like you to be their assistant. I also saw that Allen3 skipped the talk page notes a few times, so if you offer to help them, they may update more frequently. Aside from that, there is a list of regular updates on Template talk:Did you know that you can pester. Aside from that, we could always do with more scrutineers on the nominations (anybody has the right to comment). Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the names and tips. Since you had suggested it in the takpage, I contacted you first, but I'll ask the others as well. Thanks again and happy editing! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Hey Doc - Samsara is becoming painfully aggressive at the Talk:Evolution#sprotection page and your assistance would be appreciated. I don't want to make a big deal out of this - maybe you can calm him down. standonbible^Talk! 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• In re your suggestion that the discussion over at Talk:Evolution be archived: I agree entirely that it should be archived but we should probably wait 10 hours or so just so that everything settles down. Samsara might get upset if he thought I tried to get this archived when I "had the last word". Just a thought. standonbible^Talk! 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your assistance needed

Dear Doc Tropics,

• Please take look here, that you included in this discussion before.
• These users were cleaned from the accusation of puppetry and unblocked.
• I posted a message to User:Karcha after unblock;here
• I posted a message to admin User:Khoikhoi; for mediation and request good faith,here
• Karcha was blocked again indefinitely by Khoikhoi.
  • Please note that other users didnt take nor any punishment neither any warning which they took place Rv-edit war with Karcha.
• Please take a look.

Thanks in advance. Regards Must^TC 11:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

the c-bomb page (i assume its nicer than just saying the word on your talk page)

I just wanted to say i frowned confusedly when i saw your reason for reverting then laughed out loud when i saw what you were talking about. Good stuff WookMuff 12:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OMG... laughing my ass off too :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I was a little bit punchy by the end of the day; I'm glad I was still coherent enough to make people smile. Thanks for letting me know, it's nice to be noticed :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandwich

That is one damn fine sandwich. Thank you very much!--Davril2020 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it, I really appreciated your great work. There is discussion now to convert your original format to a table. I like the new form for reasons I mentioned on the talkpage, but none of this would have happened without your contributions. After days of sometimes tedious discussions, it can be a breath of fresh air to have an editor come in and actually do something! Thanks again : ) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

your revert

Why did you revert me here? That part was highly unclear ("density" makes no sense in that context, or how would you define that term for a black hole? and the fact that an event horizon would arise ist quite obvious, as that belongs to the very definition of a black hole), so it's hardly me who is acting ignorantly. I was trying to help clean up that bloody mess of an article. Best regards. 91.64.30.17 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There were a couple of reasons for that revert. First, I'm sorry to say, but I do scrtunize edits from IP's much more closely than those of "named" editors. It may not be fair, but given the levels of vandalism on wikipedia, it's effective. Second, your Edit Summary did not explain your edit, it merely expressed your dissatisfaction with the current text. Finally, you added some very specific info to the middle of a section without providing any sources or cites at all. Lack of cites was the central issue, and if you can provide a verifiable reference, I would not revert the material. Cites are critical, especially in science articles that are frequently edited by non-scientists or editors with a personal agenda. In retrospect however, my Edit Summary was both less informative, and more sarcastic, than it needed to be...for that I apologize. I hope this explanation helps. -Doc Tropics 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies accepted; for the record I'd like to note that I did not add anything to that article, I merely removed a redundant and unclear piece of text. But I am aware that watchlist patrolers can make mistakes of that kind and please let me stress that I feel no grudge about this. Happy editing, 91.64.30.17

Thanks, no hard feelings. And yes, mistakes are certainly possible; I guess this was one of mine. Please feel free to replace/revert as needed. Also, thanks for coming to my talkpage to discuss the issue. You are only the second IP editor to question one of my reverts, and the first to actually make a coherent well-reasoned response. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidences for Evolution

...Why on EARTH is the Creation-evolution page so damned coy about mentioning any of the masses of evidence for evolution? Sheesh! Mind lending a hand? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Always happy to help. I have several projects going on, but I'll wander by and see what I can do. Good luck : ) -Doc Tropics 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bosniakophobia

Some (Serbs) stated that Bosniakophobia is not an English word? Well, Serbophobia is also NOT an English word. It's not located in English dictionary. In the beginning, Serbophobia returned only 2 matches at Google. When Serbs introduced this word to Wikipedia, thanks to thousands of scrapper pages, Google now returns close to 3,000 matches of this word (all copies of Wikipedia content!!!). Serbophobia was also nominated for deletion etc, but nobody deleted it. Bosniakophobia should also NOT be deleted. If you want to delete Bosniakophobia, then delete both Bosniakophobia and Serbophobia! NONE of these words are found in English dictionary! Why do you want to keep Serbophobia? Please tell me your reasoning. Thanks Bosniak 07:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The reasons behind my comments were clearly explained in the two AfD's, but I will repeat the salient point here for clarity:

Your actions appear to be an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Please stop.

Doc Tropics 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Content Concerns

Thanks much for looking into that. :) Wrote their apparent contact a pretty big note about things, so hopefully they see that and things settle down a bit. On a somewhat related note, have you considered a run for adminship? >_> Luna Santin 11:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy if I could help Luna, and thanks to both of you for the vote of confidence. The short answer is, "yes". I'm interested in running, but I need more experience first. I've tried to branch out recently, spending more time at ANI, and 'lurking' around admins that have been very responsive so that I can learn from them.

Also, I let myself get carried away with the Election Day Revert Wars this year and got a 3RR block on Nov. 7. From what I've heard, most folks would "forgive and forget" a single block, if I can go a 3 months or so without another black mark. Needless to say, any comments or suggestions from either of you would be most welcome! Doc Tropics 18:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Esveld Aceretum

A tag has been placed on Esveld Aceretum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Doc Tropics 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Update: I reverted myself and removed the Speedy tag after carefully reading the article again. The reason I hadn't realized this "family owned nursery in the Netherlands" was notable, is that the really important bit "...largest in the world" was buried in the second para. So, to atone for my error, I yanked the tag and moved the sentences around to emphasize the notability, but I didn't change any of the text. That left the last two sentences a bit awkward, so you might want to do a little touch-up. I would do it myself, but I wouldn't blame you for being sensitive about the article and not wanting me to touch it. Sorry about the confusion! Doc Tropics 06:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No worry. I think I organized the info that way so the citations could be placed more neatly; I'll take another look at the article and see if I can do a better job of organizing it. Thanks for your thoughfulness in this matter. - ◄HouseOfScandal►12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: General encouragement

Thanks for taking an interest, i have been a bit lazy recently with my edits and the like (i seem to have been enjoying myself far too much on the WP:Lamest edit wars ever page and have fallen behind on any plans i had for actually making contributions!) I have been working on an expansion for the megazostrodon article but can't seem to get the wording right for some reason-hopefully i'll get it sorted out at some point!! (I may ask you to take a look at it when i get round to actually making the edit, a fresh pair of eyes may help the situation-if you have time...) Thanks again for the interest. Greebo cat 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as an update on my last comment-you did actually give me the incentive to finally finish my expansion of the megazostrodon article, yay me! As i said above, i would be grateful of any opinions on it as i'm not at all sure that i have the wording right. Would appreciate any input-even if it's to tell me it's rubbish! Thanks. Greebo cat 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay for Greebo! I wasn't even sure that you were around any more; it's great that you're still contributing. I will be happy to review the article and offer my comments. I do have several projects going on right now, so be patient with me. I'll make an effort to check it out within the next day or two. Nice to hear from yoou : ) Doc Tropics 18:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that the kind of linking you were thinking of? Hope i didn't put too many in-too much or not enough! Thanks for taking a look at it, i'm glad it seems ok-as i said, i wasn't sure that the wording was right but i may have been looking at it for too long! Thanks again. Greebo cat 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're absolutely right about the sources i've used which is one of the things that i was worried about (the source i used to obtain information on the crompton and jenkins paper is particularly poor!)Like you said, they're all informative websites and that's where i got all of my information from but i don't have any which are academic references. That will be my downfall for a while i think, as i'm not sure of where to get hold of properly sourced references like that and most of my information comes from links i find on various search engines. Not particularly encyclopedic i'm afraid! I have no objection to you or anyone else tweaking the article-in fact i would welcome the assistance. As i said, i desperatley need to improve my source materials! Thanks for taking a look. Greebo cat 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (er, also-just as a note-i wouldn't bother trawling through all of the links i put on the page as many of them are repeated. i was just trying to show which of the websites particular bits of information came from-that's why there's so many of them! Just to save you a bit of time, they're all of about the same caliber too!)

Yes, i've looked at the couple of sources you've added and there does seem to be some wierd obsession with teeth going on...teeth and jaw bones to be precise! Thatnks for your help and, for what it's worth, i have been looking for some other sources myself but as i said before i'm not entirely sure where to look to be honest. i shall endeavour to fix the problem though. One question-can books be cited as sources? i mean, obviously you can't link to them or anything (!) but most of my knowledge comes from my slightly geeky obsession with textbooks and the such (i'm assuming you'd already gathered that i'm by no means a professional and have no formal scientific education! Just a geek i'm afraid...) so i'm going to have to rethink my self eductaion techniques if that's going to be an issue! Greebo cat 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay-i shall spend some time in the library tomorrow in search of said sources (i get to spend some time away from my laptop-hooray! Just to prove to everyone that i *can* go for more than 5 minutes without it being on!) Hopefully i'll manage to find something appropriate-i know that i have come across megazostrodon in one or more books in the past, it's just finding the right books that may be the problem... Greebo cat 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC) PS, your talk page makes me laugh btw-there seems to be advantages and disadvantages to being on vandal patrol! People are funny. :)

That's why I only delete nasty vandalsims from my page, and leave the rants; so they can amuse future generations of wikipedians for years to come : ) Doc Tropics 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, i've spent my day in the library local to where i am at the moment and have discovered that it's officially rubbish-it's paleontology section consists of 5 or 6 'fossil hunter' books and a book on the evolutionary development of primates. Hooray. I did find one book with a reference to megazostrodon but it doesn't mention anything about it being the first mammal-just an 'early' mammal. So, my question would be-being as i can only reference slightly dubious websites should i remove the claim that it is widely accepted as the 1st mammal? Also, i do have details on the book in which i found details of megazostrodon but on attempting to edit the page to include it i realised that someone did something funny with the references section so i don't know how to add it! (yes, where computers are concerned i am a bit thick and i apologise in advance for not understanding what has been done-unfortunately this is not one of the areas where i am a geek!) Also, although i will visit a larger library at some point soon to get the references that the article needs-at the moment it is slightly lacking in that area and i won't have time to fix it before the deadline for the nomination thingy-will that cause a problem? Greebo cat 19:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nomination sounds good to me-as long as the refs are fine...Thanks again for your help! ;) Greebo cat 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rat traps

Hello, Doctor Troctopus. I have managed to evade every single little trap you evolutionist fanatics have laid out for me, and they used to keep me caged but I managed to escape due to the fact that I was far more intelligent than they were. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to insult other users. So stop making stupid little asshole remarks like the one you make here: [3] Ratso 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for a new nickname, I like that! Based on what I've seen of your Edit History, this is quite possibly the most valuable contribution you've ever made to wikipedia. Thanks again : ) 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Doc Tropics

You like eet, yah? I got a tousand little more vuns like eet! (You might not like some of them so much, though.) My most valuable contribtuion, huh? I teenk not! Ratso 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Hazzard

User:Wjhonson reverted your last edit 3 minutes after you made it and has reinserted the name into the article. Also, the name has now been stated on the article talk page. (I have studiously avoided stating the name in all my communications about this matter; the fewer things to have to clean up, the better). I've responded to the latest accusations on my talk page with the faint hope that at some point something that is said will sink in and the matter can be concluded. In the meantime, I leave any other dealings with the user up to you and yours.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Take care.—Chidom ^talk  06:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"I leave any other dealings with the user up to you and yours." - Gee, thanks. I'm not quite sure how to express my gratitude, but it will probably involve leaving a dead fish in your mailbox : ) Doc Tropics 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome, I'm sure. Before approaching my mailbox, why not enjoy this nice cup of tea and then have a bit of a lie-down?—Chidom ^talk  06:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks; that's nice. I'll cancel the dead fish. Doc Tropics 06:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it better or worse if I say it was 56,000 pages?

All kidding aside, I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me and my insane reading skillz, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 22:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed supporting you every bit as much as I enjoyed mocking you. You're a good sport, a good editor, and you're going to be a great admin. Rather than blocking troublemakers, you can just recite The Wheel of Time to them until they give up and go away : ) Doc Tropics 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I think that's more punishing on the admin... RJ repeats himself too often. -- nae'blis 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

talk:Dinosaur

I managed to stay calm, polite, and reasonable through the first couple of rounds of that discussion, but then something happened to my patience. It snapped. I'll just refrain from further comments in that section, but if you choose to respond further, I'll be watching from the sidelines : ) Doc Tropics 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and your attempt to remain calm. I honestly have never understood the various pseudoscientific theories put forth about dinosaurs; no worries, though: since the page is currently under semi-protection, it won't be edited by a creationist IP anyway. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers for Sprotect! And three more for sensible admins : ) Doc Tropics 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Actually, it was protected a while back. But it certainly doesn't hurt right now. Anyway, happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Doc. I don't think these talk page comments warrant a block, and s/he's not actually touching any articles. As long as the POV-pushing is limited to the talk pages, it seems, as you said, pretty harmless. I'll try to keep an eye out, though, and if this stuff starts making its way into articles do let me (or someone else) know. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer and explanation Firsfron. I know that some admins are probably willing to issue short blocks as an "attention getter" when this kind of pattern starts to emerge, but I agree that for now it just bears watching. With luck, they will get bored and wander off. I do intend to keep an eye on that IP though, and I'll let you know if things get out of hand.

On a pleasantly unrelated note, if you have time would you take a quick look at megazostrodon? It was recently expanded by User:Greebo cat, and I'd like to nom it for DYK. If you'd be willing to add a bit of polish or make a suggestion, it would be much appreciated. Thanks again. Doc Tropics 05:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm just headed home from work, and will take a look at it there. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Well, Doc, it looks like I missed all the excitement. I apologize; I drove home, then ate some dinner... and missed everything. You are always free to contact me about any issues that arise, but as you must have noticed, if I'm not on, WP:AN/I might be much faster. Good catch, BTW. I took a look at Megazostrodon, and, aside from some minor formatting issues (WP:MOS, etc) which I've fixed (they're just temporary ref tags; the full ones are available at WP:CITE), the article looks really good. I hope it can be listed on DYK. It's been a pleasure "meeting" you, too, and feel free to drop a note by at any time for any reason. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Presumably 136.183.154.18 (talk · contribs) is Ken, evading his block. Have a look at his edits and let me know what you think at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2 Guettarda 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and thanks! Guettarda 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua has raised the issue of a community ban at WP:AN/I. As for being an admin - I have an admin userbox on my user page - I just don't happen to have my "real" user page (or either of my "real" talk pages up).  :) Guettarda 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have always meant to ask you - why "tropics"? Guettarda 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll repsond at RfC and ANI. "Tropics" is due to the amount of time I spend on small tropical islands. I'm a big fan of hot sun and warm sea; the rum drinks are just a bonus. If I call you a "twit" for using fake pages will you block me? : ) Doc Tropics 06:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While I have gotten yelled at for incivility, unblocks and page undeletions, I don't think I have ever made a controversial block...so no, you can call me whatever you like without fear of a block. As for tropical islands - I've spent 21.5 years on one of them, and a total of 9 months (over the course of three years) on another - and I'm a tropical ecologist, hence my question. Guettarda 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI - around my house, the word "twit" is practically a term of endearment. I found your real page once you pointed it out, and noticed that we have a lot in common, except that I'm an amateur. Is it safe to assume that you dive?? I'm working towards my PADI Master certificate so that I can teach young people the glories of the reef. It would go faster if I remembered to log all my dives : ) Doc Tropics 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I'm not a diver. I snorkelled for the first time in 2004 (Buccoo Reef, Tobago), and it was one of the greatest experiences I have ever had. Guettarda 07:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're interested, and you ever have a chance to visit the conch Republic, I can certainly arrange for you to dive the reef. It's an experience all right...Doc Tropics 07:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely on my list! Guettarda 13:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're in the Keys???? ooh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dinosaur

Sometimes, it'ds good to have access to a large collection of Victorian Journals at a large reference library, eh? =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you found that ref! I was just going to ignore it as more nonsense, but it's even more fun when you can prove that it's nonsense. well done! Doc Tropics 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Happy to help out, and no worries. It was apropriate to put down. Normally, I'd just not comment on it, but I thought it helpful to show I really had looked over the issue and wasn't just saying "whatever doc says!". Plus-- one of my rants is that there's too much tortophobia in the world.  :) --Alecmconroy 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tortoise-phobia? I'm ain't afraid of turtles! Heck, I could probly whup a dozen of 'em with my eyes closed. Besides, there's some good eatin' on one o' them. Doc Tropics 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve Scherf AfD

No problem, as long as you stay and either defend your article or figure out your wrong you have nothing to worry about. We have a deletion process for a reason and sometimes nominators are wrong, people miss things or haven't quite understood everything. Thanks for making that one clear to me. Good luck. --Simonkoldyk 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good nomination—for one thing an edit war page doesn't really help Wikipedia. If Scherf were notable enough, there are ways around edit wars (locking, blocking, etc). But here, it's just not worth the effort–Scherf's notability is only marginal at best. Anyway, thanks for wanting my input. Dallben 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on a successful (and I think well-warranted) AfD nomination! It's nice to know there are some admins out there that listen to reason. You probably noticed that the Bryan Brandenburg page was kept—thanks mostly to the recruiting efforts of those SPAs. Oh well. I'm off to work on less debate oriented projects. Thanks again for your help and good attitude. Dallben 20:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD listing

I'm not quite sure what happened with my listings on the AFD page. I use the automatic afd tool which should do it all for me... Maybe I should do it manually in future. Thanks for the heads up.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, RFD is a new one to me too.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandwich!

My lord, I'm a vegetarian, but I'll do my best to finish it! (As soon as I finish the huge amount of take-out North Indian food I ordered but couldn't finish earlier.) Seriously, though, it's nice working with you. Now check out Adam Plack. Badagnani 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Brandenburg AfD

Hi, Doc! I just wanted to get your input on a few odd things I've been noticing related to the Brandenburg AfD. I've found two questionable new users who contributed in different ways. Look at the contributions of Smurf noodle and those of WatchedHim and let me know what you think. I guess maybe I'm a little paranoid that an administrator will only look at the votes and not the reasoning. Do you think it matters that most of the "votes" are to keep the article? Dallben 07:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, the closing admin will review the comments and weigh them according to their merit, not their numbers. In reality, there can be huge backlogs and at times admins are rushed. In order to assist them in assesing all factors of the discussion, it's permitted to add a comment under the initial posts these editors, something like:

• This editor has made few or no edits prior to this AfD.

It's not a way of telling an admin to ignore the comment, it's making them aware of possible biases or POV issues. It's definitely warranted in this case. If I were to guess about the outcome of this one, I would expect the closer to look at the numbers and facts that you've cited and delete it. There's never any gaurantees, but editors who do little more than say "I agree with X" don't count for much in the final tally. Doc Tropics 08:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI—it seems pretty likely that something fishy is going on. So far we have four users who've only ever contributed to this discussion: WatchedHim (contribs), Stanlys212 (contribs), Stanlys212 (contribs) Linux monster (contribs), and Smurf noodle (contribs). Anyway, I'm sure that if the administrators give this one a fair assessment, they'll see through the smoke and mirrors. I'm interested to see how this plays out. Dallben 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Duh—I neglected to add this other suspicious new user, because I forgot to replace a copy/paste. Sorry if you're getting a barrage of flak about this. I noticed that Stanlys212 is being a bit malicious. Thanks for being such a good sport and supportive. Dallben 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As you've seen, I'm more than willing to engage in honest debate, listen to reason, and modify my stance when appropriate. However, I have a low tolerance for bullshit. Stanlys212 clearly falls in to the latter category : ) Doc Tropics 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei criticism: Bullet points or prose?

So, Lostcaesar has suggested we convert the bullet point to prose paragraphs. On the one hand, the bullet points allow the article to be a little more NPOV-- I wanted to keep the criticism very brief, and the bullet points allowed us to retain that extreme brevity but still be NPOVed balanced against a rebuttal section that was 3-4 times as long. On the other hand, we don't use bullet points elsewhere in the article, so perhaps we shouldn't here either, but should just create a longer prose form of the criticism. What do you think?

He's worked on a replacement controversy section here. As of this moment, it's basically just the sentences with the bullet points taken out. I think it sounds a little schiziophreni (though he may have fixed that). Do you think bullet points are acceptable, or should me replace them with a longer prose section? --Alecmconroy 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help with the Opus Dei. IF you would, try to keep a close eye on it- you an excellent educator, and I greatly value your insights. For example-- there's a discussion ongoing about whehter the article complies with "Articles Structures Which Imply A View"-- can you think of any way we "fold criticism" into the article? I don' think it can be done, but someone with more experience might know a way. --Alecmconroy 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alec, I've been watching the discussions, even when I'm not participating. I haven't weighed in on the "criticisms" issue yet because there are advantages and disadvantages to doing it either way (a discrete section vs. interwoven). In general I think it would be better to seperate it and make sure that criticisms and responses are carefully phrased and properly balanced. This should help keep the rest of the article cleanly focused on specific topics. You've done an absolutely incredible job of improving this article, mostly I've been watching from the sidelines and cheering : ) Doc Tropics 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei: a section title and balance

So, here's the latest on Talk:Opus Dei. One issue is on whether it's acceptable to have section entitled "Criticism and 'cult' allegations". It's undisputed that notable cult allegations are being made and are the #1 criticism of the organization. However, one school of thought holds that referring to the "cult allegations" is so prejudicial that we shouldn't mention it in the title of the cult allegations section. I say that if the allegations are notable enought to have section, they're notable enough to have a title that reflects their mention-- but some good editors have made points in opposition.

A second question going on is whether the article complies with NPOV. Are the "criticisms" and the "support" section 'balanced', or are we giving undue weight to one side or the other. Anything you can do to help us strike the right balance and get to FAC would be much appreciated!

Thanks for all your advice help, Doc. --Alecmconroy 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Page

Megazostrodon looks so nice there on Wikipedia's main page. Congratulations, Doc! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack Warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlys212 (talk • contribs)

• I suspect Stanlys212 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a sockpuppet due to disruptive editing at Bryan Brandenburg and at the Brandenburg AfD. I expect him to disappear when the article does, but I'll report any further disruption at AN/I and at Suspected Sockpuppets and let admins deal with it appropriately. Doc Tropics 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Update: This alleged newcomer filed a report on me at Wikiquette alerts. After 6 months on wiki and over 3,000 edits, I've never seen this page before. But he manages to post there (and cite policy against me) on his 9th edit? What a talented newcomer we have here : ) Doc Tropics 23:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Grrrr!

Can you help me again doc? There's a problem with one of the links on megazostrodon-the link in the line It is thought that it was nocturnal as it had a much larger brain leads to number 3 in the references section where it should lead to number 1 but i can't figure out how to fix it which is annoying me a lot. Told you i was thick...;) Greebo cat 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. I just copy/pasted ref#1 over ref#3. This left the proper numeric sequence in the text, but replace the ref/link under the "References" header. Is that what you wanted? Let me know; I'll try again if it's not. Doc Tropics 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks-that's what i was aiming for but when i tried the same thing it didn't work when i previewed it. I think maybe my machine's having problems at the mo anyway cause when i try to click any in-line links like that one they're just not working. But the one you connected it to was definitely the right one so at least it'll work for other people! Thanks again... Greebo cat 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:Sockpuppet Questions

I think the best way to report this is on the WP:AIV page or to an administrator since it is more than one issue that it concerns. Most likely they can sort through the matter, since its more complicated than sockpuppetry.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also one last thing, if you ever feel high suspicions of sockpuppetry you can tag their page with this template: {{sockpuppet|name of user that is using the account as a sockpuppet}}. If you ever need to make a case file regarding the sockpuppetry get back to me on that and I'll walk you through it, but first check with admin on this. Hope this helps.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Block

crossposting my original comment for reference. Doc Tropics 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)<?small>

Thanks for this block. I backtracked and cleaned up after him. Doc Tropics 07:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for 15 minutes based upon the attack in the edit summary. if I'd known they had been performing a lot of other vandalism, I would have blocked for longer, but maybe 15 minutes is enough. However, their edit history shows similar edits from a while back, not just tonight, so it might be a static account. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I'll be watching both the account and those articles. I thought I'd seem him before; those Edit Summaries are fairly distinctive. They'rs always quite formal, right up until his blood pressure boils : ) Doc Tropics 07:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Zoe block thing

DocTropics, can you explain how Zoe acted correctly even though policy states that sysop's involved in a content dispute should never block someone else within that dispute? Why should they not have contacted another admin? I am trying to learn the processes admins follow and it seems that the written word is sometimes not the same as reality, so leads to confusing situations like this one. Cheers -Localzuk^(talk) 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My explanation and the ongoing discussion are at ANI, here. Very briefly, Zoe blocked him for policy violations, not an edit dispute, and the block was more than justified (although some disagree). Doc Tropics 21:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense?

How was that nonsense? Did you click my links? Steve is telling (another) bold faced lie! 06:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC) anon

His userpage is there for use in project-related matters. Your harrasment of him is personal, not related to the project, and does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Doc Tropics 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Way to go!

Sorry I haven't been helping out as much on the Christmas article recently. I have had a massive Japanese test (that I just got home from! Yay!) so I had to drop wikipedia in favor of studying. I see you pretty much single-handedly defended the article from a couple of recent attacks. You are doing a great job! Time for me to jump back into the fray! MightyAtom 08:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MA, that was intense. I hope your exams went well; I'd be happy for a bit of help with the article. Between vandals and POV warriors, there is a lot of activity there. Glad to see you back : ) Doc Tropics 16:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas

I take it the goal is FA by Christmas, if possible? Weel, direct me at where I can best be of benefit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, FA by Xmas was the goal, but it has been a case of "two steps forward, one step back". One of the biggest issues right now is citing some of the secular/pre-Christian tidbits because they are being attacked by...well, you-know-who. Also, you are a master when it comes to writing in neutral language and removing POV; anything you could do along those lines would be helpful. This article actually has a lot in common with Evolution, except that we don't have the 'home court advantage' here. Thanks so much for offering to help : ) Doc Tropics 16:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Replace "Editing help" with "Cheatsheet" link

Per your previous interest, here's a link to the updated proposal: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Replace "Editing help" with "Cheatsheet" link. Please comment/support there. Thanks :) --Quiddity 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. I actually had to take a short time-out and step away from my keyboard because I was starting to lose my cool. Sometimes I'm just at a loss how to respond to certain types of behaviour. I appreciate your intervention, and if we ever meet in RL, I'll buy you a drink (quality stuff mind you, none of that cheap booze). : ) Doc Tropics 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Deal! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Variations of Evolutionary Theory

May I ask why you reverted my addition to the evolution article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbarnes (talk • contribs).

Of course you may; I'll start a new section in the article's talkpage. Please stand by : ) Doc Tropics 21:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, you delete my article first because it was not scientific enough for the evolution page and then because I'm not allow to cut an paste. Seriously, just let it be! It's in the right place now and it's not duplicated anywhere else, so what's the problem? Pbarnes 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the material you have tried to post is both accurate and relevant, it would be necessary to discuss its inclusion on article talkpages. You inserted the material, it was reverted by myself and others, so now you need to justify adding it, not just keep reposting it. Please remove it from the article and discuss it on the talkpage. Doc Tropics 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You reverted my addition yet again, now it's your turn to discuss it (Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#Proposed_Section). Pbarnes 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk age

Snapped a bit at GuilliameTell earlier, so I'm not checking my talk page again tonight until I'm a bit less grumpy. Sorry! =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries; the Doctor says, "Take two Martinis and call me in the morning." Doc Tropics 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts

Dang, you just me to the punch on two reverts in about 5 minutes. I lost the edit conflicts to you at both Rosa Parks and Evolution. Keep up the good work  : ) Doc Tropics 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. That's one of the advantages of building your own custom software to fight vandalism, I gather. I'm going to head to bed soon. Enjoy the hunt! --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. I greatly appreciate your vote and comment. Have a nice day! -- Chris is me 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Prussian Blue

Why did you revert my edit to Prussian Blue (duo)? Over zealous editing perhaps? 151.203.15.96 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies! Upon further review I realize it was a foolish error on my part. I can't imagine why I considered this edit about your Grandpa's spunk to be vandalism. Please feel free to replace the info as soon as you can provide a good ref for it. Thanks for your inquiry; the participation of editors like yourself is part of what keeps WP...interesting.  : ) Doc Tropics 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See my followup to User talk:151.203.15.96. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I had to step away for dinner; thanks for the followup. It seems we share a similar attitude about blatant vandalism, and Husond resolved the issue quite neatly. 31 hours should be about right. Doc Tropics 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

May you live in interesting times

Talk:Joan of Arc. Have a look. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting indeed. I got an overview, but want to look into more of the details. It's a fascinating little case-study. Thanks for the pointer : ) Doc Tropics 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Having looked a little deeper, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this. I'm not qualified to comment on the academic points of contention, but my BSR (BullShit Radar) is flashing a "Yellow Alert". Doc Tropics 04:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Baraminology

I'd appreciate your opinion on the notability of this. Yes, some creationist terms are notable enough for an article. But I'm really unsure about this one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I had actually been looking at Baraminology and Creation biology already, and thinking about various options. I was considering the possibility of merging Baram into CB, then renaming it Creation biology (religous belief), or something similar. The useful info (what there is) in Baram would be preserved, and the article more accurately named. I think it's important to clarify that CB is not actually a science, but a belief system with the trappings of science. The current version of the article is rather misleading in some respects, and a good rewrite would be in order. Let me know what you think. Doc Tropics 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas

Hey doc, I just put an edit into the Christmas article (before I signed in) referencing the date for the first use of 'xmas' in place of Christmas. It looks like you just undid my change and got rid of a date altogether. Because I don't edit all that much, perhaps I referenced things incorrectly, but I'm going to reinstate my changes. It's midnight and I've done about an hour of research into this, so I've got to justify my efforts somehow. If there are issues with my post, please respond to my thread on the discussion page or, if I've just screwed up the technical parts of the citation, please feel free to fix that.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreydaj (talk • contribs) 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I responded on the talkpage. The text got changed but the ref didn't, so I blanked it all, then went back and matched up the proper bits. I tweaked the text a bit at the same time, but I wanted to compliment you on the ref itself; nice job! Doc Tropics 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Saw your changes, and the verbiage does look better like that. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreydaj (talk • contribs) 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Evolution

Although I doubt anyone would block you for it, it could be argued that the anon is making a good-faith attempt to insert information into the article (even though it's POV and false, if it'd done in good faith it isn't, strictly speaking, vandalism). Consequently it's probably better for you to not revert the article more than three times. There are lots of eyes on that article anyway. While most people would not block you for it, it's better not to have to depend on people making a judgement call if it were to happen that someone would report you for a 3rr vio. Guettarda 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll take your advice and refrain from reverting that IP's contributions anymore. I assume 3RR would not apply if I revert some other case of actual vandalism; is that correct, or is it best for me to avoid the page for 24 hours?

By way of explanation, I noted that the IP's first edit here deleted sourced info (and its ref.) and replaced it with unsourced POV which was factually incorrect. While I personally consider that type of editing to be vandalism, I realize that my interpretation may not be correct. It's also true that his second edit didn't delete the refs, but simply replaced factual info with unsourced and erroneous POV, so I understand that it should probably be considered some kind of attempt at good-faith editing.

Sometimes it's necessary to make judgement calls in gray areas, so I thank you for your advice; hopefully I can use it to improve my judgement : ) Doc Tropics 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually inserting factually inaccurate information into an article repeatedly should probably be considered vandalism. But some people might disagree, and even an anon can report a 3rrvio, in which case it becomes a debate. While the discussion is almost certain to go in your favour, it's generally better not to put your fate in the hands of others. There are lots of pedantic idiots here. Guettarda 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I agree completely, on all counts. Thanks again, I really appreciate your "intervention". Doc Tropics 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Hold the presses! The IP has been replaced by User:Realknowledge who is making the same edits. I won't intervene, but I will be watching, with interest. Perhaps now that he is "named" we can engage him on the talkpage? Doc Tropics 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that. I also told him that the 3rr applies to both his edits as an anon and now as a registered user, so if he reverts he can be blocked (most people, once they see the diffs, are likely to read it as the same user). Guettarda 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

respect my privacy!!!

i wrote before, mr "Doc Tropics", that i quit Wikipedia after withdrawing my contribution, but i was reported that some here are passing again all respects to my personal privacy by public accuse!
being a newcomer and being repremanded, i deleted all my text, and quit, so there is no reason to keep on making public comments that relate to my privacy, like real name et cetera. i never realized what you guys could crusade novices, and i regret trusting WP.
i am not interested at all anymore, i do not want any reply, just keep off my privacy!!! otherwise i have to escalate.--Kokswijk 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a diff, and refrain from making threats. If you don't know how to post a diff, or what I'm talking about, ask here and I will clarify. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: Kokswijk posted "personal" info about himself on his own userpage here, inviting wikipedians to peruse it. He create the article Interreality and cited himself as a source. Frustrated when the article faced AfD here and his credibility was challenged, he "quit" the project. Well, except not quite...before he can leave, he feels the need to erase every instance of his name from the WP record, including its usage in the AfD which is still active. His post above comes after several deletions and reverts at the AfD here. I'm not going to get involved in a revert war on this, but I'm pretty sure that tampering with an active AfD is a no-no. Doc Tropics 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious - his userpage has been Speedy deleted as having contained "personal information disclosed without permission", yet the edit history makes it clear that he posted the info himself. I suspect the message is somewhat generic, and an admin decided the page was problematic regardless of who posted it. I know that there are some fine points of policy I don't understand yet...Doc Tropics 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You can request a speedy deletion for your userpage, it's a valid request even if the rationale is kinda weird. Guettarda 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil

Thanks for removing that. I was looking to see where I actually referred to anyone on the "black people" talk page as difficult. I was not able to find the quote that I supposedly had made. Of course, I have thought that people are being difficult, but I do not think I ever stated that in public. It is not such a terrible thing to say anyway, since I think it is not that far from the truth.

I have also thought about leaving the warring groups to fight it out among themselves; black supremacists, white supremacists, many types of racists, black pride advocates, Afrocentric types, Eurocentric editors, Americocentric contributors, those with global viewpoints and those who want to reserve the term "black" for American use only and get foreigners out of the article, people that think the word "black" is an ugly racial slur, people that think the word "black" is a proud label, people who think black is a scientific term, people who believe in racial boundaries, people who think race is a myth, people who think race is a social construct, etc. We have had some NeoNazis on the page as well. I am trying to encourage the production of an article with ALL views, including some science if possible, and these groups are fighting me tooth and nail. I have been called stupid and ignorant over and over and much worse as well. It gets wearing after a while.

I have debated just leaving the page. Before I got there, the article was locked for weeks on end and these groups just fought and got each other banned. Huge amounts of good material were written and then deleted. The history and archives is a gold mine of all kinds of interesting stuff.

I responded to an appeal for assistance at the community pump and that is how I came to the page originally. The senior editor that had called for help eventually left the article in disgust. I must be hard headed because I am still there, but I am not sure I will stay. Thanks again for your support--Filll 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility warnings

Are you an admin? Are these comments not incivil?

"And I think some things are finally penetrating into your skull however."

"I was not aware that A. W. F. Edwards was contributing to the discussion above. What esteemed company, but if he wrote some of what we see above, he might be getting a bit senile." (Referring to my points without realizing I was directly quoting Edwards...)

"You can sit there pleased with yourself that you are racially "pure" and you have an eagle eye for detecting those "filthy" blacks who are so different than you, but I think we all know what your agenda is. You have revealed it in ample measure here." (Feel free to read all my comments. I've never said or implied I'm pure or blacks are filthy, etc...) Lukas19 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin, but I think it would be more productive to assume good faith and try to move past the difficulties rather than focusing on them. If you really feel that his comments were incivil, maybe you could ask an univolved editor or admin to review the situation. This is obviously a contentious subject that involves strong feelings for many editors. Doc Tropics 17:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please...I'm supposed to assume good faith after those? If you are not an admin, please undo your deletion. If you think my warnings were bogus, you should contact an admin. Or maybe have Fill contact the admin. I dont know. It'd be more productive for the person in question to see my warnings and decide what to do...Lukas19 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I also note that you reviewed the whole material in 15 minutes. You must be a really fast reader...Lukas19 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)