User talk:Gabbe

Edward Teller and GWP

Hi Gabbe. The reason I include some verbiage on what the Global Warming Petition is on Teller's page is that the title "Global Warming Petition" can be misleading, causing one to believe that Teller was a signer of a petition in favor of the theory of Global Warming. Not all those who go to Wikipedia will search through each hyperlink to learn the details. It should be reinstated.

Edgy01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgy01 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion section on veganism

You had previous comments on the matter. Extended discussion here: Talk:Veganism#Comments_2. Kellen^T 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop canvassing all the time none of ye were discussing with me anyway. ~ R.T.G 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch

Good edit on the Sexual orientation and military service article. I look for uncited claims that I can disprove, and I even edited that article today, but I just didn't catch that one. Kudos. Macai (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

for your help -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tree rings etc

One of the things Wikipedia does is correct common misconceptions, of which this is one. Isn't that so? Evercat (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's rather well known. But someone's found a source; I imagine others could be provided. Indeed, the block-quoted text, which was there when I made the edit, makes this clear. Evercat (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Evercat (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vegans

No Gabbe you shouldn't have warned me at all. I did not wander off topic. I have a serious concern about the bias jockeying on that article. If you are lawyering abstractly you may be gaming the system to protect your own set of values or those that you seek to identify with. All questionable entries are open to discussion. You seem not to have read that or the gudeline on general forum discussion which you have suggested to me. Was it really nessecary for me to pursue you and tell you that your idea of wrong was actually wrong? ~ R.T.G 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't my intention to appear hostile, and if I've offended you I do apologise. My concern is that your talk page edits are very difficult for me to comprehend. This edit, for example, doesn't appear to be about what Veganism should say about honey-consumers who consider themselves vegan. Gabbe (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I find that people in control of that article are unwilling to discuss one thing yet overly willing to discuss another. This is the reaction. It's not fair that they pick out what they think is suitable. It is for others outside of Wikipedia to determine what is suitable and for us to acknowledge that. The usual collaborators on that article are quick to say no to everything in one category and yet a study of wether meat-eaters are prone to paedophilia gets a serious discussion. That is ridiculous, isn't it? Can't determine if a bee falls under the category vegetable or accept popular culture in Germany to be interesting and noteworthy? What sort of input do they expect? There is no culture on the article and no food. It's a bit dumm I think. ~ R.T.G 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gabbe. You have new messages at Drmargi's talk page.
Message added 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SCOTUS?

The article says:

It was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009 after being approved by the Oregon Supreme Court.

Is this true? None of the sources appear to say that SCOTUS has granted certiorari to hear this case. Gabbe (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The source document from the National Catholic Register talks about the 6th Circuit Court to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is technically a lower branch of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is quite high up in the American legal system, it is very close to the final court. It would probably get to the Supreme Court if that given lower court were unable to resolve the dispute once and for all. ADM (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a more recent source here from Beliefnet that openly declares that “the case has reached the US Supreme Court”.[1][2] ADM (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Paddle (spanking)

Hello, If you have time to take a look at Talk:Paddle_(spanking)#schools_.22Mainly_in_the_south.22_use_corporal_punishment I would be grateful to know what you make of it. I feel that I am being got at unfairly. -- Alarics (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Gabbe! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 728 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Évelyne Thomas - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on SOCE

I don't know my way around the medical end of this 'pedia well enough to have pointed to WP:MEDRS on the SOCE page, but it sure does apply well, and was a good effort putting that in. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Makovsky's painting in the Rape article

Tjena Gabbe! (yeah, I'm Swedish too)

Would like to bring your attention to my new and improved post in talk:Rape. Since I felt it was all "plain to see", my previous post on the same topic was short and perhaps sloppy, sorry about that. But is it okay to feel a tiny bit hurt by your removal due to trolling? Jag har ju liksom ingen svans ;)

No seriously, no hard feelings, I'm very impressed by all the good work you done for Wikipedia.

Cheers!

Coolhearted (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that, it did look like trollism at first glance. My humble apologies! Gabbe (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it sure looked like trolltyg! I assumed way too much insight on that specific piece of artwork. So over and out, thanks for the help, and I hope to clash with you again some day ;) Coolhearted (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for rescuing my comment from oblivion on the Talk:Creationism page. I was a bit confused by the wiki markup for the archived discussion and ended up archiving my comment by mistake. Glad you caught that. Ori.livneh (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appriciate the vote of confidence for my suggestion in the Creation according to Genesis talk page. The horse has been beaten into a blood smear on the floor and any help to arrive at some semblance of consensus is very welcomed! Nefariousski (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis FAQ

If you're interested in helping me with the FAQ for this article I'm working off of the following test page Nefariousski (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Book of Genesis

Gabbe, thanks for your very constructive (and helpful) critique of my final proposal on the Creation fiasco. I would like to follow up on your suggestion of finding a way to incorporate the Pinnock quote. Am giving that much thought.

I was assiduously editing the lede in Book of Genesis when I checked history and you had just add "myth." I had already written "myth" into para. 2, so would you please see if this explanation meets your approval? IMO, the lede was fairly skimpy, so I added some of the kinds of material that often introduce a Book of the Bible. Thanks! ─AFAprof01 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit source.

Hi there,

I was referred to your 'spanking' page due to the appearance of it being a fair and balanced treatise of the subject. The supposed 'research' conducted on Sweden's 'failed' ban on spanking is highly flawed and has never been deemed worthy of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It's (internet) shelf-life stems mainly from pro-spanking conservative Christian web sites.

I'm afraid those 'Swedish crime stats' are also bogus. Did you chase that resource? (Because of Sweden's success in reducing rates of Child Abuse, we are now up to 23 countries that have followed Sweden's lead by instituting their own bans on spanking... with more in the process of following suit.)

Perhaps I can help edit this page to be more scientific friendly. I'll get back to you soon.

James C. Talbot, author of, "The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent's Guide". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmonyunltd (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On Spanking

Nicely handled, Gabbe. I appreciate your efforts in producing a more representive picture of this ill-advised punitive practice.

James C. Talbot