User talk:Duncharris/archive10

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Start a new discussion

Archives

Archives of old discussions: One / Two / Three / Four / Five / Six / Seven / Eight / Nine

Blocked for disruption & dishonesty

1. 19:20, 29 November 2005, Ed Poor blocked Duncharris (expires 19:20, 30 November 2005) (contribs) (Unblock) (disruption: said his redirect was "per suggestion" which was not actually made - dishonesty)

In your edit comment, you wrote:

• 15:24, 29 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Unguided evolution (#REDIRECT evolution per Ed's suggestion on talk) (top) [rollback]

However no one named Ed made that suggestion. Lying about your reasons is disruptive. It would have been okay, however, if you had said despite the suggestion in talk, which was to discuss it first.

You don't have to discuss redirects first - even though it's polite, and cooperative - but you have to be honest in your edit summaries.

If there is not a specific "no lying" rule that binds admins (or even ordinary users), there ought to be. Uncle Ed 19:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This has got to be the least justified block I've ever seen. Luckily, the block has already been undone. Friday (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith as per wikipedia rules would indicate that it was a typo and not lying. Blocking as a result of not assuming good faith is distruptive. 4.250.198.32 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking, but why is Dunc entitled to an assumption of good faith, but not Ed? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am certain, personally, that Ed blocked in good faith. I also believe he blocked wrongly. Fortunately, a block is quickly removed. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I very much doubt Ed blocked in good faith. In the past few days he blocked JoshuaSchroeder (whom he was in conflict with) and threatened both KillerChihuahua and FeloniusMonk. And this is the second time that he blocked Dunc in the middle of conflict. He admitted last time (in Dunc's RFC) that he was wrong to block Dunc given their conflict. This is repeat behaviour that Ed has admitted was wrong. And it hasn't been that long ago that Ed gave up his bureaucratship to settle an RFAr against him stemming from his use of admin powers. And it was only a few months ago that he de-sysopped 172 and others against policy. It appears that Ed does not consider himself bound by the rules and norms of the community. This sort of behaviour has got to stop. Guettarda 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Universism v. Humanism

Duncharris, regarding your post on my talk page, please enjoy the comparisons of Humanism and Universism that are made on the Universist website. To clarify, you are being asked to allow an article to be published, not for whether you like or understand Universism or not. If you are confused about Universism's notability, may I remind you it was recently on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. http://universist.org/media.htm Universist 02:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

acronyms?

Could I ask you to return to Talk:Irreducible complexity and spell out your acronyms? I thought I was at least reasonably fluent on the debate but I don't know who you're talking about. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there chum

I was wondering if you could pop over to Talk:Lothrop Stoddard if you get the chance. I'm having some difficulties with someone who I think is a little confused and I'm not eager to break 3RR. --Fastfission 18:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Many thanks. --Fastfission 03:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

But arguing with creationists is soooo much fun!

Look at what this anon user said: "Only one who believes in everything in the Holy Bible can be a real Christian." The possibilities to respond are endless. The Bible has so much terrible stuff in it that to be a true Christian (by his definition) you would have to be a child-eating, wife-beating wretch of a human being. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify why this page was deleted and how it can be replaced. This is frustrating. This is an important concept and idea, and I took great care to construct an encyclopedic entry on it.

I'm a real Christian and I don't believe in the Bible. (My first name is Christian, but I guess that's not what the editor meant) Christianjb 11:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Restore scienticity

Please clarify why this page was deleted and how it can be replaced. This is frustrating. This is an important concept and idea, and I took great care to construct an encyclopedic entry on it.

I have already posted this on user talk page. KillerChihuahua 20:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

consensus

>Please do not make controversial changes to articles against consensus.

I hope you are not editing the page on "consensus" because 55% of the population is not consensus in my book.

No more personal attacks

Dunc, please stop attacking me with accusations of "POV pushing" and the like. If you think I have written anything in article space which violates Wikipedia:NPOV, you can mark an article or section with {{NPOV}} or discuss the disputed text in a talk page, but your destruction of my reputation is not something I am willing to accept. Uncle Ed 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you have written lots in the article namespace that constitutes original research and POV pushing of your bizarre view of science (that plus the bullying of course). But don't take my word for it (after all I'm not Wikipedia's self-appointed #1 NPOV expert) -- have a look at the VFD logs. I am not destroying your reputation; you're managing fine all by yourself. — Dunc|☺ 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why deleted my contribution to the 'evolution' page?

Hi, put a section in the 'evolution' page called 'External Links to websites against evolution'. I'm interested to know why you deleted it? I noticed that in other articles in this wikipedia, that external links against the topic usually quite common. - I see, no response. So much for the neutrality of wikipedia! Not even allowed to put external links at the very bottom of the article. Nor to inform other users that one of the external website isn't functioning.

I see, no response. So much for the neutrality of wikipedia! Not even allowed to put external links at the very bottom of the article. Nor to inform other users that one of the external website isn't functioning.

BDAbramson's RFA

Thank you, Dunc, for your well-spoken support in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BDAbramson T 02:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note new "admin gold" sig :-D}

Unguided evolution probably shouldn't redirect to Evolution.

Whatever form of evolution you're typically referring to, it's never going to be unguided, so I'm unsure why there's a redirect to Evolution going on there. Kim Bruning 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll delete it again then. Evolution is of course guided by the Darwinian process so it's more self-guided than unguided, though perhaps genetic drift which is entirely stochastic could count as unguided evolution. — Dunc|☺ 22:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Granted, but when creationists refer to UE they are talking about normal biological evolution. Guettarda 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so then the NPOV thing to do is to state that "Unguided Evolution is a creationist term (or framing) for -> Evolution" ? Kim Bruning 22:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that is what our resident expert would say. Ed? David D. (Talk) 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[Second edit conflict]Yeah - it might be worth a line in the "controversy" article (it might even be there) - but for all practical purposes it might as well either be a redirect or not exist. Guettarda 22:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict at user talk:Ed Poor

Just a little note to let you know that I didn't intend to delete your "nothing of the kind" rejoinder. My user talk page is a little busy this morning. I'll try to re-post it next chance I get, if you don't beat me to it. Cheers. Uncle Ed 15:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

hi

i actually wrote "it's said to take place" not "said to be". my sentence does not deny the fact of "selection" but wanted to stress the allegorical anthropomorphic flavor of the phrase "natural selection". but i understand your misunderstanding and i will try to fix things

we all should read and undo work by others more carefully and more constructively

also the intro is/was long but only because the body of the article is not long enough.

User:Poopface

Good call- well done! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Science of Questionable Validity

In case you haven't checked the Categories for Deletion page yet, I just wanted to make sure you were aware that I did not create the category to replace category Pseudoscience. Hackwrench 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Spiritus Intus Alit

I have reworked this into a disambig page - you may like to reconsider the afd on it in the light of it's new look. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 11:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia image galleries

Seems to be a lot of overlap with Category:Wikipedia images by type. Should these be unitify or one made a subcat of the other? -- Fplay 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Being Disruptive

Duncharris you have been disruptive on more than one occasion. Previously, you have removed my replies from several sections on 12/8/2005 without warning or explanation. That was very rude and very disruptive.

And now we have the "second law of thermodynamics" issue. I pointed out earlier that this presented a distorted version of the creationist position. I even pointed out that there was a previous section that made the same mistake before it was fixed (and I even pointed out where I you could find sources to demonstrate that the creationist position had indeed been misrepresented). I asked you to discuss it in the discussion section before reverting again. You refused and went straight to your reversion. This is disruptive, because as I pointed out earlier it is not the case that creationists claim the "Second Law is incompatible" with "the coming into existence of complex systems" and as I said I gave sources to support my claims. You have recklessly continued this misrepresentation of the minority view in spite of my warnings. Please do not do so again. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Dunc hasn't posted here or answered any of the Talk posts for over a week. He's obviously not very interested in replying. I've experienced this same problem with Dunc, though. We should consider reporting it as admin abuse. He reverts and doesn't say why. I think it's a shame that he hasn't considered your arguments and responded to them. It's certainly admin abuse when an admin doesn't listen to users, reverts their contributions, and gives no reason why. --Jason Gastrich 20:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Dunc just gave me notice that I was on my third revert on the second law of thermodynamics section (by the rules, I cannot do another revert in about 24 hours). Given his behavior, it may indeed be appropriate to report him for admin abuse. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

More vexacious litigation, great. The note to editors page at the top is not for discussing your definition of theory, it is for informing creationists who arrive and complain about NPOV without any justification that we've been here before. You need to explain NPOV problems on talk pages. I note I'm not the only one to revert your pov pushing on 2LOT. As for not answering my talk page for a week, I try to respons but I try not to feed the trolls. I welcome you reporting me because I'll be vindicated. — Dunc|☺ 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dunc, what POV on 2LOT are you talking about? Removing distorted versions of creationist claims is not POV. Recklessly putting forth distorted versions of the minority view is disruptive, particularly after warnings and citations to the contrary.

For sake of argument, suppose you are the only person qualified to make notes to editors. You didn't just remove my suggestion regarding how to use the terminology, you removed several other of my replies to other sections as well. This is very rude and disruptive. I don't know why you think you would be vindicated in light of your unacceptable behavior. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "You need to explain NPOV problems on talk pages." Ditto. Instead, you made the reversion on the second law without explaining your NPOV problem on the talk page, despite my request. Please do not add hypocrisy to your disruption. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Please report my "admin abuse". — Dunc|☺ 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade, you're way out of line here. It is you who has been disruptive. Duncharris has been cleaning up after your repeated inserting of your own POV, which is exactly what an admin is supposed to do. Don't for a minute think that you can bully him into not doing his job with threats and baseless allegations. This is very thin ice you're skating on, Wade. I advise to rethink your strategy. FeloniousMonk 22:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why am I out of line? What POV have I been inserting? You have not explained (neither has Dunc). On my own talk page you accused me of making false claims, an accusation without evidence. If you think my claims are false, simply follow the links and see for yourself. Don't for a minute think that you can bully me with threats and baseless allegations. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD -> IfD

Thanks for pointing that out :) - FrancisTyers 14:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Question - how do I go about deleting the AfD page? Thanks - FrancisTyers 14:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

GWR 6959 Class

Please explain why you re-broke the links from the name versions of the locomotives. --David Woolley 16:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect target for Differential reproduction

Hi Dunc, just thought I'd mention that I think Selection is a better redirect target for Differential reproduction than is Darwinism. -Cheers. Pete.Hurd 17:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but I think you can get selection without reproduction, e.g. pebbles on a beach, sports leagues, etc. — Dunc|☺ 17:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but the selection page deals entirely with biological selection, selection for alleles via natural, artificial, sexual selction in a population... -Cheers, Pete.Hurd 09:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm blocked?

I hardly ever even log into my account and I was going to leave a comment by mistakingly pressed the edit button. I got this message;

You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.

Your IP address is 64.233.173.85. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Duncharris.

The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "UrineForGas". The reason given for UrineForGas's block is: "bad username".

That isn't right. I haven't left any vandalism on any pages or anything like that. I don't know why you banned me. I guess just a wierd mistake.

Oops. I just left the "I'm Blocked?" message. I couldn't edit it because I'm banned from editing, but my user name is Cereal Box Conspiracy.

Hi Dunc, please help

I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

queller of free speech

It was an amusingly (at least from my point of view) gay school. I'm sure things weren't so innocent for everyone. I'd like to know. Got a problem with that?

BGS sufferer, 1977-1986

[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Duncharris,

Thanks for your welcome and web pages. The only problem is that I am finding it difficult to get the footnote and reference links to work properly even though I have tried constructing them using the templates. I still have not figured out how to get them to work properly on the polystrate article page. I guess that I will figure it out in time.

Best Regards,

Paul H.

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a New Year filled with vandal-whacking. Guettarda 15:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh

Isn't there some kind of rule against changing the words of a member on their own talk page? Mark K. Bilbo 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll get the same answer I gave WarriorScribe: it's generally in bad taste. However, he (first) changed (only) a link I posted on his talk page (that spoke about WarriorScribe/Dave Horn) to point to a different page owned and operated by him. This made it look like I actually posted that link when I didn't. So, I changed a link that he posted about me (that pointed to a hate site about me) to a biographical page owned and operated by me. Fair is fair. --Jason Gastrich 23:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. So it's tit for tat eh? How Christ like of you. Mark K. Bilbo 00:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the Scripture commands to "turn the other cheek" do not seem to apply to Gastrich (along with lots of other Biblical instructions, which is why he's a phony as a "Christian"), he should realize that I did him a favor. The maleboge.com site is a collection of lies and his guise as "Fraud Buster" was, itself, a fraud. In other words, he lied to the readers, yet again. Let's also add that what Gastrich did was not quite what I did. I did not change a link on his talk page...I changed it on mine. Gastrich has already shown that he feels that he can do whatever he likes on his "talk" page, including the speedy removal of adminstrative criticisms (note how fast his warning for violating the 3R rule was removed by him), so I guess I can do whatever I like on mine...right? Of course, that's not right. But the last person to be criticizing anyone should be Gastrich. Point made. WarriorScribe 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much

When I think of all of us who worked together so hard for so long, I think of the line from Henry V We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

It was a fun ride, wasn't it? So thanks you guys, that meant a lot to me.

Who did the Thelonious with a mop artwork? Brilliant! FeloniousMonk 08:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response

The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.

• I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. -- Bonaparte talk 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Let me know if you actually get a mediation going - or if you need help teaching Bonaparte how to archive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to state your opinion on the latest changes of the article Second law of thermodynamics? thank you. Bonaparte talk 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope one year was enough until now :)! Bonaparte talk 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine-tuned universe

"Guillermo Gonzalez" links to an article about a soccer player :-). I'll include it. Dave (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Darwin -- Wedgwood family

Hi Dunc. Is there a reason why Category:Darwin -- Wedgwood family was named thus, rather than Category:Darwin-Wedgwood family (in line with Darwin-Wedgwood family)? Regards, CLW 13:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's supposed to be an m dash (which wasn't supported, but now is), not a hyphen. A hyphen suggests one name, e.g. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, whereas an m dash suggests two independent names, which is the case here, since Darwin-Wedgwood wasn't used as a surname. — Dunc|☺ 14:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. In that case, should Darwin-Wedgwood family be moved back to Darwin -- Wedgwood family? And when you say the em-dash is now supported, does that mean that my browser (Firefox 1.5) should be showing the category with an em dash instead of two en dashes ('cos it isn't...)? CLW 14:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No m dashes are supported now, they weren't when I made the category, so it probably should be Darwin — Wedgwood family (I think there are supposed to be spaces too). — Dunc|☺ 14:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"nonsense" is in the eye of the beholder

"nonsense" is in the eye of the beholder. I believe that everything that I wrote is completely true and factual. I find that OTHER people have written complete garbage and falsehoods. Oh yeah, politely fuck off. Cheers!

The life that I have

Hi! I must have inadvertantly sinned. You removed the Violet Szabo code poem and some other text from the article The Life That I Have. Why? If there's a problem, is it ok to link to an external website? Without access to the poem, the article is emasculated. Nice photo :) Happy New Year. Folks at 137 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

James Holden

You changed James Holden in to a disambig. page, but the original content seems to have been lost. Is your link pointing to the wrong place?

I moved it to James Holden (musician) it was deleted by Petaholmes (talk · contribs) at # 11:42, 28 December 2005 for violating WP:CSD no A7 (failure to claim any notability). See WP:MUSIC. — Dunc|☺ 20:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

British Rail regions

Hi Duncharris! Are you going to move all "X Region of British Railways" articles to "X Region"? It seems to me that many of the other regions are disambiguation pages, and whilst the London Midland region will probably not need a dab, for consistency should all regions be called the same?

If nothing else, looking at the history it suggests to me that the regions were originally at "X Region" and were all moved to "X Region of British Railways" in order to be consistent. Perhaps there was a consensus for this original change (I don't know)?

Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think shorter names the better and the LMR is not ambiguous. Perhaps the others should be in the form Southern Region (British Railways). — Dunc|☺ 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that, but consistency is important for our readers. Asking readers to negotiate between 6 articles all on the same subject but some of which are named very differently to others is asking a bit much! Personally, I'd move the LMR back to where it was; or change all 5 existing articles to the "X Region (British Railways)" format, and then check the links for the North Eastern Region and make sure that fits the new pattern.

I know the latter's a lot of hard work, but the alternative is potentially confusing readers, which really won't do. Plus, was there consensus for the original move to dab pages plus "X region of British Railways"? If there was, common courtesy requires getting a new consensus on the changes.

The last thing anyone wants is to provoke a revert war with the railway fanatics! I'm not one, BTW, I just once worked for BR and have a fondness for them (they were a great employer and it was a great job; then we were sold down the river, vast numbers were made redundant or got pay cuts and everything went to hell. BR weren't perfect, but there's been nothing better since, honestly). Anyway, nationalisation rant over! I'm just seeking consistency and dreading the war that will follow trainspotters not getting it! ;) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

I go off and get hit by a hurricane and find out you've been fighting with Ed Poor and being nasty. Bad Dunc, no cookie! (I started writing this before seeing Snowspinner's comment too) -- Cyrius|✎ 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Possessive singular nouns

Hi Duncharris, please note that correct usage of the possessive of a name in English includes the s after the apostrophe. It is therefore Dawkins's not Dawkins' - see Skrunk and White's "Elements of Style" (http://orwell.ru/library/others/style/e/estyle_1.htm) and the Chicago Manual of Style (no free edition unfortunately, you'll have to buy it). Mikkerpikker 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Both styles are considered correct, depending on whom you consult. Does Wikipedia have an official view on this? -- dmh on Wiktionary

"Interesting factoid but not relevant"

Not wanting to start an edit war here, but ...

Given that the term "Mitochondrial Eve" stems directly from Genesis, and that it misleadingly suggests a first human as opposed to a common ancestor, and that there is a better referent directly available in Genesis, Noah's wife seems perfectly relevant. The term "mitochondrion" has nothing to do with the Bible, but "mitochondrial Eve" very explicitly does.

I'm not really up on the Wikipedia process, so I don't know exactly where to go from here, but I don't feel that summary deletion was the best option.

Mark K. Bilbo entry

Duncharis, I'm not sure if you've followed the Cabal mediation and the talk page on this entry. Nonetheless, don't you think it would be best to be more specific about Bilbo's posts that offend? The talk page lists 12 instances and I find it much more informative and accurate to articulate what he says that is offensive. Your thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason, given your track record of trying to discredit your opponents, this is what you are doing here. You are not representative of Christianity, you are a fringe Internet kook. In particular, you should give examples of others being "offended". I think given the nature of Usenet, that the whole reaction to his posts is really irrelevant. Of course if he states his opinion, he will be opposed. Of course if he comes across fundies who don't follow Jesus' advice to love thy neighbour, they will hate him. You're one of them. To that end, it's probably better to delete both sentences as they say nothing of interest to importance. — Dunc|☺ 15:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for name calling and personal attacks. They aren't very becoming of an admin.

Mark Bilbo isn't my "opponent." I only know him from Usenet. He's an author of technical books and man with a web site and a list. How is he really opposing me?

Notice how Gastrich tries to minimize the situation, but he gives the game away by mentioning the "list." What is the "list?" It's a numbered list of atheists, participating at alt.atheism, that Mark kept on his server. Once Gastrich discovered this list, he wanted to obtain it so that he could issue daily, public prayers (designed to single out and embarrass those individuals) and also so he could know whom in Usenet are the "atheists" (just as he's labelled as many atheists as he thinks have articles here at Wikipedia). Mark denied him the list and put up a block on the server to prevent Gastrich from downloading it.

Gastrich used a proxy, went around the block, and took the list, anyway. If it's "theft" to take something that doesn't belong to you and that has even been specifically denied to you, then Gastrich committed theft. Mark and several others exposed this act and took Gastrich to task, pretty severely, for it. It's one of the reasons that Gastrich "left Usenet" shortly thereafter.

So when Gastrich tries to play innocent and tell you that all he knows of Mark Bilbo is that he's a Usenet participant whom has written some books and maintains a server and a "list," he's being disingenuous. We can dismantle most of Gastrich's defenses of his actions in this way. He's almost constantly trying to "put one over" on people. WarriorScribe 17:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate Bilbo. I've never cursed at him or mocked him. I've never told him that I hated him. This is a wild and unfounded accusation.

I think we all know that one needn't be specific about such things--they can certainly be clear by tone, language, and approach. When a case has been presented that supports the contention that Gastrich hates Bilbo, is jealous of him, and wants to get back at him, "do not" will not suffice as rebuttal. WarriorScribe 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You skirted the issue I wrote you about. Wiki is about facts. Let's remove non-facts and just write the facts. In short, Bilbo uses profanity and mocks God and Christians.

You see, we can examine this more deeply and find still more to make Gastrich's case of less merit and demonstrate that his own position as POV-driven. For example, Mark cannot "mock God" because he doesn't believe in "God" or that "God" exists. Gastrich views his commentary in these cases as mocking God because Gastrich does believe that God exists and believes in him (or, at least, his version of "him."). Most of us whom actually either took part in or witnessed those exchanges know this. WarriorScribe 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is irregular behavior and should be noted.

It is not "irregular behavior," not in Usenet and not even in life. Gastric's seemingly sheltered upbringing should not be a determining factor in these things. The use of profanity is common in society. Name-calling also occurs commonly. Society tends to be more restrained about it because we can put faces to names, generally, and that's lacking in Usenet. In Usenet, at least, these sorts of exchanges are also fairly common, but may get heated more rapdily. Within even that context, it doesn't matter. Usenet participants are generally only a small minority of Internet users, and those populating free.christians and other, similarly-themed groups constitutes a still smaller number. Those in alt.atheism are also a relatively small number. These are facts that Gastrich does not want to be relevant, but they are relevant, nonetheless. WarriorScribe 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing it altogether is out of the question. How do you think we should include these notable facts in an nPOV way? --Jason Gastrich 15:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing it altogether is, of course, quite reasonable to everyone but Gastrich. His is about him and getting his way--despite the talk, his record makes it clear that he's about that and nothing else. He's all about division (the overwhelming majority of his "contributions" and "edits" at Wikipedia has been composed of categorizing people as "Christian" or "atheist."). Gastrich despises atheists and has frequently attempted to belittle and make fun of them in Usenet (and other) venues, and what we have been seeing for the last few days is not his first tantrum, when he doesn't get his way or when he's been rebuffed or even challenged. It may be that Gastrich needs a few days from Wiki to cool off. He won't do that on his own. WarriorScribe 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not notable facts. As I stated previously, you are trying to assasinate his character on no basis whatsoever. To do that you rewrite the sentence in an NPOV manner. Rewrite it in an NPOV manner and it says nothing. Of course it insults the fundies, the fundies get offended by everything! You should try to cite examples of others being "offended" by such remarks if you really want to push the point. — Dunc|☺ 15:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In a sense, this conversation was over when you perjured yourself by calling me names and launching personal attacks. (Gastrich)

How these things, even if true, constitute perjury, Gastrich will almost certainly never say. It's just another fancy-sounding word Gastrich thinks he can use in an argument and, as is often the case, the use is misplaced. There has been no "perjury" here. WarriorScribe 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Gastrich, continuing) Nonetheless, I will conclude with a couple of things.

Whether or not his words are offensive is a subjective judgment. Therefore, we should simply give some examples (even citations) of his language. The way he talks certainly isn't normal and it's certainly notable. Some will be offended and some won't, but that's not really the point. The point is that he mocks Christians and God and uses profanity and name calling. Since you do the same (at least to some degree), I see why you don't think it's notable; but it is.

I have no ability or desire to assassinate Bilbo's character. I'm merely reporting the facts. If his character has been murdered, then he has committed suicide on his own character. --Jason Gastrich 16:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's simple enough really - WP:V and WP:CITE. Find a respectable academic source which says he uses "profanity and mockery" and quote it. Otherwise, obviously, it's an opinion, or at best, it's a violation of WP:NOR. Guettarda 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In that the article is about me, I've been trying to keep some distance but this whopper is too much Gastrich. You must be hoping people don't look too closely at Usenet because they'll discover that not only do you and I have a history but that you started it with your forays into alt.atheism. The second of which is caused the fall out of which you complain so much now. And this isn't the first time you've tried to attack someone in the Wikipedia. You went after Reggie Finley on the Wife_Swap page. You and Finley also have a history. I didn't ask for that blasted article to exist. I didn't know it did until you started your games. I definitely would rather it be deleted entirely than used by you to launch your petty little attacks. This is personal and you know it. Stop trying to pretend you're being "factual" and "encyclopedic." Reality is, you just don't like me. And that's all this is. Mark K. Bilbo 16:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bonaparte#Mark_K._Bilbo_entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_K._Bilbo

Isn't it Funny (The Gastrich "Debate")

When Bonaparte, a mediator, made a statement that Gastrich could include his paragraph, Gastrich touted it as a "ruling" from an "admin." He reposted his sentence, complete with commentary that it was not to be changed or removed, per this "ruling." He got pretty bent out of shape, trying to use that as leverage, when it was challenged, as such. How dare we challenge an "admin?"

Well, as it turned out, Bonaparte is not an admin. There was no "ruling," certainly nothing that would prevent the comment from being further edited.

Now we have an admin--the real thing--whom has entered the discussion, examined the facts, and made a change in the article. This is certainly, at least, an implied ruling by an admin, isn't it?

So why is it that Gastrich, when he thought he had won the issue with the backing of an "admin," was all about everyone else abiding by the "ruling" of this "admin," but when a real admin makes what can be viewed as, at least, an implied ruling, and it's not what Gastrich wants, he wants to argue about it?

I'll tell you why: It's because the only thing Gastrich cares about is getting his way. I couldn't have made up a more clear example of that than what Gastrich is giving us over this issue. WarriorScribe 17:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Some rail questions

Hi Dunc! Since you are the only guru I know about here on rail I wonder if could ask you a few questions...

1. How long do you think an article on a locomotive ought to be before we can say it is not a stub? I have created a few articles on the Norwegian locomotives in the past weeks, and some people seem to think that {{elec-loco-stub}} needs to be filled with articles in order to be worthy.
2. Exactly what is the definition of "slam door" with regard to passenger carriages. Does it simply mean the doors are conventional ones on hinges, or does it refer to the carriages with lots of doors all leading directly into the main seating area?
3. The coupling rod article says that they refer to the rods on the driving wheels of a steam engine. What are the similar rods called on (usually older) electric locomotives?

Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I have tried updating the coupling rods article. Thanks also for the links, I was wondering what "A1A-A1A" meant when I was writing the NSB Di 3 article. Now I know. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Singapore? Quarterly something? What?

I got a warning about vandalism. I've never been to any page about Singapore. What's this all about?

"Genesis Creation Myth"

See my entry on the talk page for Mitochondrial Eve for my explanation. Yes, I'm a creationist. No, I don't believe that Eve was the only living female (for very long) or that she is the ancestor of all humanity. No, I'm definitely not a biologist. I'm just trying to keep things neutral.

The Bilbo Issue

Hey, dude...please check the talk page for Mark Bilbo. This really needs to end. See Mark's comments, in particular, near the bottom of the page. Thanks. WarriorScribe 04:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum/Epilogue: If this doesn't provide some insight into Gastrich's motivation for the whole thing, nothing will [wink]. Meanwhile, here's my response. WarriorScribe 18:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

River Plate

Please desist from moving Río de la Plata back to River Plate. I raised the issue [and I wasn't the first to do so] on 22 December, 2005, and a week later, moved the article, with the full approval of everyone who participated in the discussion. If you disapproved, you should have spoken up. If you disapprove now, speak up now. Moving the article and overwriting the disambig at River Plate is not good editing practice. Tomer^talk 11:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the only thing I see you've ever contributed to a discussion of the name of the article is to direct attention to Wikipedia:Use common names, from which I quote the first paragraph for you:

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page.

If you read my arguments on Talk:Río de la Plata and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Naming, you'll note that it is specifically because of this convention that I argued in favor of Río de la Plata... Tomer^talk 11:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I give up. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. — Dunc|☺ 11:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Argh. That's not the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Looking over the discussion of the very move I finally went ahead and made, after much encouragement, both on WP:talk and via email and on IRC, I see that since last October, you are basically the only one who strongly opposes the move, yet I haven't yet seen anything stronger argued by you other than "Use common names", which is exactly why I made the move. I'm on IRC as Tomer_ if you want to discuss it with more rapid interaction. Tomer^talk 11:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

final decision

Please see talk page for final decision from the Cabal Mediator Bonaparte talk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Williams Revolution

Hi Dunc, can you take a look at Talk:Williams revolution?. The article could at least do with some sources, and while I'm sure you have a good reason for reverting Samsara's edits I think it's clear from that talk page that Samsara was acting in good faith, so he deserves an explanation of why they were reverted. Joe D (t) 21:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

In your vote on my Arbcom voting page, you indicated that you don't trust me. May I inquiry as to why not? Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just get a feeling that you're not 100% doing the arbcom thing for the right reason. — Dunc|☺ 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Why do you think I'm "doing the arbcom thing"? What's wrong with that reason, whatever it is, and what do you think is the right reason? Kelly Martin (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

River Plate

Renewed attention required on Talk:Río de la Plata Jooler 00:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA/William M. Connolley 2

You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. (SEWilco 06:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Thankyou. I had already voted. He was very harshly treated for giving the climate change trolls what they deserve. — Dunc|☺ 09:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your edit

Hi, could you explain your edit here. You have used roll back on what did not seem to be vandalism. Please respond on the article's talkpage or my talkpage. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 12:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That may not have been vandalism per se but for some reason this newbie was moving all references to Taunton to Taunton, Somerset. When special:whatlinkshere/Taunton makes clear that there is no need for dabbing of Taunton. — Dunc|☺ 12:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Taunton, Somerset

Please explain your reversions, as this is a perfectly acceptable practice in the event of a name that has multiple meanings none of which are predominant. It appears to be little more than an Anglocentric abuse of power at this point. Darkildor 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not make mass multiple moves without discussing them first. — Dunc|☺ 09:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Dunc! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, please!

No calling creationists 'cretinists' - be civil. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Río de la Plata / River Plate

Hi, It's a while since you were last seen on the talk page for Río de la Plata, so I thought I'd just let you know that there's a vote currently in progress on moving it back to River Plate. -- Arwel (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Number 8

Number 8 is sometimes refered to as 'lock forward'. This is why in league 'loose fowards' are called 'locks' in Australia. Think about it, what was a number 8 called before player numbers were invented? Answer: Lock forward. Presumably the name 'number 8' stuck because it was the only position to have the same number under both the old number system which counted from the fullback forwards was switched to the modern system which numbers from the front row back.

It is not so common these days but I know for a fact that it is still on occasion used.GordyB 14:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Napolean

So much for our illustrious mediator. David D. (Talk) 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is there is a policy to have this template on the User pages of all indefinetly blocked users? If it is not I would rather not have this template on Bonaparte's User page, despite to have my reasons to be angre on him abakharev 23:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it helps because it puts them in a category. — Dunc|☺ 09:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis

Hi! You reverted my reverts in Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Could you please comment why?

My reasoning why the added section should not be there:

The article of the section is a question: "Ham's Salary -- Milking the Nonprofit Cash Cow?". An encyclopedia should contain facts, not speculation.

The tone of the addition seems to be one-sided, argumentative, and not befitting of an encyclopedia entry. Exclamation marks, random italics, random bolding.

There is vague speculation at the end: "might want to consider whose pocket those donations are lining." Is that encyclopedia material? Political opinion blogging perhaps, but not befitting an encyclopedia in my opinion.

If salaries of some people are important enough to be encyclopedia material surely they can be mentioned in a less partisan manner? The way the entry is now clearly shows the author has strong one-sided opinions about the matter - not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and does not give confidence that even the facts are presented fully and honestly. Weregerbil 13:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm, well it probably needs a citation, needs less editorializing, but I think it's still a valid point if made properly. — Dunc|☺ 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hence my edit comment: rv. Are there encyclopedia-worthy facts there? If so, please resubmit just the facts with less hostile and more NPOV language. Please use a blog for political commentary. I haven't compared various similar articles to see if salary comparisons are commonly made in Wikipedia. Making one in one particular case as a blatant device of attack and to push someone's personal political agenda feels ...non-encyclopedic to me. Weregerbil 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wiktionarypar

You, along with several other editors, suggested replacing {{wiktionary}} with {{wiktionarypar}} a while ago, which is gradually being done. Netoholic is now repeatedly redirecting Template:Wiktionarypar. Please read the prior discussion of this (which I've reminded Netoholic of) at Template talk:Wiktionary and contribute. You may want to put Template:Wiktionarypar on your watchlist. Uncle G 08:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aetheronometry

Hi Duncharris, any reason why you reverted my edit (I hope you understood that the summary was directed at TTLR - we actually had an edit conflict removing his junk). --Stephan Schulz 18:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

69.122.182.198

She's back on my talk page at the moment, ie Katherine Johnson - any idea what we do? If you look at her contribs at the number, there's not a useful contrib amongst the lot! SatuSuro 09:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see too much of a problem with 69.122.182.198 (talk · contribs). She's probably trying for a reaction, so just ignore her. — Dunc|☺ 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thomas and friends

Sir,

Of all the tripe for kids on the tv, thomas is palatable and I find myself watching with my little boys

WHY? Because there were real trains these toys were made after, and the mechanics facinate me.

Before I start getting inundated with'how-things-work' questions, I need to find tecnical diagrams and/or animations of Thomas and friends. I found your tank engine stuff on Wikipedia, but how the hell does that thing go??? Thereris no visible piston!!! I am guilty of sitting through several discs and tapes trying to figure out the mechanics of that silly blue tank engine.

Could you help, sir?

Father of Two

Not quite sure what your question is but here goes. Thomas, who is a LB&SCR E2 Class has two inside cylinders, regulated though valve gear (probably Stephenson valve gear), which will drive onto (probably) the middle axle. I can't find any drawings but if you see this picture of a 4F: http://www.44422.co.uk/Resources/Gallery%20Overhaul%20Final/200105b.jpg the plate below the smokebox door has been removed and you can see the two cylinders inside there under the smokebox. Inside cylinders are more stable resulting in fewer lateral forces and thus less hammer blow, whereas outside cylinders are easier to maintain. — Dunc|☺ 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Humorous that you found it and moved it to a more appropriate name before I was able to post a little message to you about it. ;-) Your input is of course also desired on this. --Fastfission 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Um... uh oh...

Okay now, this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Native_American

If an actual native sees it, the fur is gonna fly. I don't think the Wiki needs Gastrich to drag them into the "who's an Indian" debate. That is one hot button issue in Indian Country let-me-tell-you.

Myself, I'm mostly Norse (really, I was startled, get it from both sides of my family) via French and British ancestors. Glow-in-the-dark white. But I've got friends (even some family) who are full blooded, reservation raised, still speak their ancestral language, card carrying Indian type persons. Lived on a reservation for almost six years. Been active in native rights issues at various times in my life.

And I don't know where to begin on how wrong this is, minor little userbox as it may be... Mark K. Bilbo 23:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

HMS Cumberland (C57) moving

HMS Cumberland (57) is its proper name and title, i have updated the article with your and mind information. I have moved the article to HMS Cumberland (57) and ask for HMS Cumberland (C57) deletion. Please do not revert a article that is just an update not an completed new article please.

Thank You

HMS Cumberland (C57)

I have requested for this article to be moved, for more information look at Talk:HMS Cumberland (C57).

Please do not bite the newcomers

Regarding the HMS Cumberland (C57) → HMS Cumberland (57) naming issue and your rather brusque comments on MiniEntente's talk page, please remember our do not bite the newcomers guideline. Yes MiniEntente was not following proper move procedure, but that happens sometimes when new people are bold. --Kralizec! | talk 06:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

please

Could you stop vandalism on rugby union ?

thanks a lot

A wihipedia.fr writer

which like rugby

Rugby union project

There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union that you probably don't know about. The league equivalent is working quite nicely but the union one only has five participants. So I'm leaving messages on the talk pages of the main contributors. You don't have to join up but your contribution would be welcomed.GordyB 10:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Evolution warning

Damn, my edit got reverted in 2 minutes. I was hoping for at least 5. Well you can rest assure that I did not make that to promote some unscientific, religious doctrine. I just thought it was funny. School boards can do it so why not a Wikipedian? --Arm 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If a mother dies childless she is not a mother!!

I edited this tract which you just reverted:

Starting with the entire human population alive around 150,000 years ago, lineages will become extinct as mothers die childless or only have male children. Eventually, only a single lineage remains, which is the same as before.

The sentence makes no sense - if a mother dies childless - she isn't a mother. Maybe you need to change 'mother' to 'woman', or else mention that if she has a daughter, the daughter must have no children.Michael Dorosh 23:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...

Over at Cindy_Sheehan there is one or more users inserting materials or referencing the website "Zombietime.com" which by all appearances is a personal website of a bloggish nature. Seems to be a personal website aimed at criticizing (he said euphamistically) liberals. My understanding of Reliable Sources would be that such a site is never allowed as a secondary source (such as info about Sheehan). I suspect a Gastrich style "NPOV is including my website" kind of thing. Am I off base here? Take a look if you can. Thanks. Mark K. Bilbo 15:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proceedings of the Royal Society

Hi, I've noticed your merging-proposal, but I'm not sure about what you mean. I had already merged the two articles, no information was lost. The complete history section and the extra links have all been incorporated into the other article. I started Proceedings of the Royal Society because I wasn't aware that an article about the journal(s) already existed. As far as I know, Proceedings of the Royal Society is the most common name, whereas Proceedings of the Royal Society of London is the historical name. The Royal Society uses Proceedings of the Royal Society, that's why I made the other article a redirect. Cheers! Nobbie 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But if you create a duplicate article you ought to use the original. — Dunc|☺ 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand what you mean. I've merged my article into the original article. I now suggest moving the page to the more common (and current) name Proceedings of the Royal Society. The edit history will be preserved. I also suggest making the Proceedings of the Royal Society B article a section of the main article as long as it is a stub. Nobbie 10:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

TOC

Hi, I've just seen your change on the 222 page. I know train operating company pointing to National Rail is a bit odd, but it redirects there anyway, so changing it avoided a redirect. Perhaps it should point to [[National Rail#Train operating companies]]? Willkm 18:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No we need a separate article on train operating company. — Dunc|☺ 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: wheel arrangements

An interesting observation; I've seen the AAR notation used more widely around here than UIC, but I have no strict preference for either. This seems like a good topic to bring up on the project talk page. Slambo (Speak) 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a clue

I'm sorry, I'm the railway man, not the train guy. I don't know where this train comes from, although I do recongnize it... Migdejong 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this one for google bombing... lelijk hoofd. IT doesn't work yet, but lelijk hoofd already designates my user site... Migdejong 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag

(diff) Dunc, removal of dispute tags is a type of vandalism: Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism; Please replace the tag. Thank you. agapetos_angel 13:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, that's just it. There is no clear consensus (see Talk). Editors are still working on a respectable version, from both 'sides' of the debate over that section. Therefore, removing the tag was vandalism. And I didn't revert the last one; just left you a note so you would see it (since you don't appear to be reading the Talk). Thanks agapetos_angel 13:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, not only are you not checking talk, but now you are not reading commentary? You 'reverted something' (is that 4?) that was never changed! (1)diff(2)diff(3). See? agapetos_angel 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You must have inserted something in order for the page to change. If you ask around you will see that most people consider inserting random spaces to be vandalism, and thus something that should be rolled back. Guettarda 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sarcasm on my talk page, cute. Verifiablity is being attempted/added and edits are being currently being discussed in talk (if you look there, you will see that even Alai is getting frustrated with your reverts that are removing valid links and edit that he made). How about this? Please read talk, please stop vandalising the article by removing tags, and please stop accusing me of failing to follow NPOV when you aren't even in the ballpark of the dispute discussion, k? Furthermore, please see above where I outlined that your last revert wasn't a revert of anything. agapetos_angel 14:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see above AA - you're the one who has now reverted to vandalism to make a point or something. Guettarda 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A dummy edit is not vandalism. It was to get Dunc's attention that his removal of the disputed tag was vandalism and to please replace it, as he was evidently not responding in talk and just reverting (evidenced be the null revert). agapetos_angel 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I apologise for accidentally reverting a null edit. (Quite why one was needed when we have a talk page, but I digress). I presumed incorrectly that AA was edit warring, which I shouldn't have expected him to do at all. Naughty me. — Dunc|☺ 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, if you would respond on the talk page, dummy edits wouldn't be necessary. Alai has asked why you and Jim keep reverting his valid and undisputed edits and link additions. And your commentary shows that you are not grasping the dispute, as you are complaining about NPOV and POV pushing, when that isn't the dispute at all. There are about 5 (maybe 6) editors who are reworking both the header and the 'scientist?' section, and as a dispute is ongoing regarding the latter, the tag is appropriate. Please replace. agapetos_angel 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm watching you. If I thought you had said anything important or relevent I would have commented (and indeed I have occasionally). I don't think crossposting of monologues is very useful though. Don't feed the trolls, as they say. — Dunc|☺ 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Crossposted to retain them on my talk for the moderator to review, that's all. You still haven't reverted what you vandalised. agapetos_angel 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, please don't report me at WP:VIP, I must have been confused by the dragons in my garage. — Dunc|☺ 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology

"Does anyone know anything about the basic principles of anthropology?" I found this comment at Talk:Human to be rather terse and enigmatic. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should introduce Human in the way an anthropology textbook might? --JWSchmidt 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: US govt pictures

Yup, got it after I left for work. Just a bit busy this week getting ready for the Mad City Model Railroad Show and Sale and for a clinic on molding and casting parts out of epoxy resin for the SCWD on Sunday. I'll see what I can do. Slambo (Speak) 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wedgwood family tree explosion

I was just wondering why the sudden explosion of entries for descendants of Josiah Wedgwood?

Also if you are looking for cousin marriages in the family, Jessie Wedgwood, daughter of John Wedgwood and Louisa Jane Allen, married her double first cousin, Henry Wedgwood, son of Josiah Wedgwood II and Elizabeth Allen. Also Josiah Wedgwood IV's first wife, Ethel Bowen, was a first cousin (their mothers were sisters, Emily Frances Rendel and Emily Catherine Rendel)

--Erp 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

DAB Perth

Hi I took the liberity of dabbing Perth in your Archive 1 page, I have been fixing perth links and intend getting it down to zero before the end of the month. Sorry if I've offened Gnangarra 14:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please leave my. Perth should be about the city in Scotland with Perth (disambiguation) dablinking at the top. It isn't because of self-obsessesed Australians who don't know their geography or place. — Dunc|☺ 14:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not self obsessed. I know my geography. So whats my place??

There has been a concensus reached as to how Perth is used within wikipedia. I was not altering the consenus only cleaning up the dab list. Gnangarra 13:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Using rollback on non-vandalism edits

Hi, Duncharris, could you explain why you are using the rollback privilege on an edit which is clearly not vandalism [1]? Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I cannot explain why you think it was not vandalism when it clearly was. — Dunc|☺ 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is after Talrias himself used rollback on my rollback of his edit to that page. <shakes head in bemusement> Guettarda 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, do as I say, not as I do: [2] Oh the irony... FeloniousMonk 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ZOMG_Userpage_edit_war. Kim Bruning 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Duncharris, I, and many others, interpreted the text (which you reverted to) as an allegation that Igor Alexander (the founder of Wikipedia Review) is the Nazi Alex Linder. How is removing such an allegation vandalism? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I hear you always need the last word... — Dunc|☺ 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wha?

You sent me a message... and I have no idea what you're talking about. Augustinian 22:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hey, I really am not a sock puppet... I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was until just now, nor did I know about the 'three-revert' rule. In fact, I just signed up today. So... yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustinian (talk • contribs)

So how do I get of this 'suspected sock-puppet' list? Augustinian 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rugby Union Six Nations Championship

Is there a reason why we need the 'Rugby Union' bit at the beginning? I've never heard of any other tournament with the same name.GordyB 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page of this page for days and nobody objected to this move, I left the above message on your talk page and you gave no reason why you reverted this move. I ask again is there a reason why this article should not be called simply 'Six Nations Championship'? If there is fine; otherwise can you please stop reverting it.GordyB 21:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't move it the normal way since there already is a Six Nations Championship page. I don't know what the correct way to do this is. Should I move the data to the Six Nations Championship and then put the Rugby Union Six Nations Championship page up for deletion or did you have something else in mind?GordyB 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is now listed as a requested move. So far, the only comments are from GordyB and myself, who both support the move. Please make your views and reasons known at Talk:Rugby Union Six Nations Championship#Requested move, otherwise the page will be moved. Andrewa 09:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tr201

Hi. Unfortunately my picture collecion is a bit small right now. As soon as I get the picture of better quality I'll let you know
CCMichalZ 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names

Further to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). Regards--A Y Arktos 10:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW You might want to look into the 2nd Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names. It appears that the "c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and c. 14 for endorse" outcome of the first wasn't clear. -- User:Docu

football

The Victorian Rules folk are trying to claim that Aussie Rules is an Australian variety of the game when it is very distinctly a Victorian variation of football and was codified in Victoria many years before the beginning of Australia. If you share the same opinion I would love for you to come to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football and give your opinion.

All the best

04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

BR subclasses

I am in two minds about this. Whilst it would allow further detail, there is hardly any difference between some subclasses, e.g. 66/0, 66/4, 66/5 and 66/7 are virtually the same, and only 66/6 ad 66/9 differ significantly. Likewise 47/8 and 47/7 are the same as 47/4, and in the case of modern DMUs (e.g. class 170), there are only different subclasses as each operator wanted to its own subclass.

Overall it may just be better to have subheadings for each subclass (as i have done on the class 317 article). The exception being the departmental class 97, which should have separate articles for the purpose-built locos. What are your views? Our Phellap 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA comment

Hello. Your comment in Sam Spade's RfA is simply not OK. Please withdraw it. Jonathunder 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I came here for exactly the same reason. Whatever your disagreements, such a comment is simply not called for, and unbefitting a long-standing admin. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mr Harris, please no!

Hey, please don't leave that information public on-wiki like that. Could you remove it again please? Kim Bruning 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(that and an RFC is not appropriate at this point in time, Slimvirgin has offered to mediate) Kim Bruning 15:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that you shouldn't be wheel warring over an RfC in which you are commenting. I'm going to have to block you for three hours over this: the block and the dispute are noted at WP:AN. Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

An RFC is perfectly appropriate considering the Agapetos angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s disruptive behaviour. — Dunc|☺ 15:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

An RFC is not appropriate if there is a mediator Kim Bruning 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to the arbcom. We've exhausted all the normal channels. — Dunc|☺ 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a mediator present now. But if you'd like to take this to arbitration, you may of course do so, at your option :-) In other news; thank you very much for applying common sense! Kim Bruning 16:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems like poor timing to start an Rfc at the time she agrees to work with SlimVirgin. Why not give that a chance? If this elevates to Rfa, the actions of everyone involved with the case will be examined. IMO, this is playing with fire! FloNight ^talk 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. you've restored the RFC. Why? Kim Bruning 03:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that due to the sensitivity of this information, please leave deleted while we discuss. We can always undelete, but we can't undisseminate. Kim Bruning 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)