User talk:UncleBubba

Don't be a Dick!

Discuss whether Nxavar's edit to Introduction to general relativity was vandalism

I have been in Wikipedia for more than four years, although I did not immediately create an account. I have also devoted a lot of time on reading the articles about Wikipedia policies. While my edit to the Introduction to general relativity certainly had issues and I should have thought more before making it, it is an extreme to be called vandalism. For that reason I demand an apology on your behalf. Nxavar (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The message template I posted said your edit "did not appear to be constructive". The sentence appeared to me to be gibberish, so I reverted it. Word etymology doesn't really belong in most WP articles, as WP is not a dictionary. I think you said it best when you said you "should have thought more before making it". Please do continue to contribute, though! This is a community effort that depends it's editors to flourish. UncleBubba (Talk) 19:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My complain was about the descpription of your edit in the history page. Also, please note that it was not me the one who gave the etymology, I just tried to give the correct word (diairein instead of daiein which is a non-existent word) and a hint about how it is pronounced since it really is gibberish for English language speakers. Nxavar (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I use an automated tool (Twinkle, or TW) to do much of my editing work and I have a choice of reverting a questionable edit or removing vandalism. I try to assume good faith but the text just didn't make sense to me when I read it (and "diairein" sounded really close to another word that we don't want there). In fairness, I reverted the entire topic in a different edit that didn't mention you. UncleBubba (Talk) 19:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, do not forget that I wrote how the word is pronounced. I think you should have started a discussion in the talk page or just stick with "reverting a questionable edit". Labeling the edit as vandalism was too much. In general, that label should be used with great caution and maybe it should be used only for extreme cases that can only be described as such. In other cases the polite "questionable edit" label seems more appropriate. After all, since the practical end result is the same why not be a little polite? Nxavar (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that your last comment (which should be in this section, not the "Case Insensitivity" section) means that you accidentally labeled the edit as vandalism because of your unfamiliarity with the software. If that is so, thank you for the apology. I would also suggest that you read the "What is not vandalism" section in the Wikipedia:VAND article. I think that you too have to read the Wikipedia policies. Nxavar (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it was intended as a humorous reply to your comment about case-sensitivity and was in the correct section. You should not make the mistake of assuming I do not know the proper place to insert a comment. Neither should you assume I am unfamiliar with the software I use or with WP policies. I did not accidentally label your edit vandalism; I saw you had inserted a word that looked very much like a misspelling of "diarrhea" and I reverted it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck. If you hit "Save" without previewing and carefully proofreading your edit, you are probably not going to get the results you want. If it makes you feel better to read this as an apology--which it is not--then so be it; I ain't gonna argue with you. Personally, I think you'd realize a better return on your time if you read the WP:MOS. UncleBubba (Talk) 01:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You should notice that "diairein" is supposed to be a Greek word and then check if it really existed to see if the fact that it sounds like "diarrhea" is just a coincidence. But then again I wrote how it should be pronounced, from which it should be clear to you that my intentions were not to imply "diarrhea". I really cannot see why you rushed to come to the conclusion that I was vandalising. There certainly were reasons for you to think that even if it looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and sounded like a duck it might not be a duck. I also wonder why suddenly something that peviously just looked gibberish to you and was reverted because "word etymology doesn't really belong to most WP articles" now sounds very much like "diarrhea" and was reverted because it was considered vandalism. Nxavar (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And just how--exactly--was I to know it "is supposed to be a Greek word"? Is this the Greek Wikipedia? No. Did you use the accepted APA pronunciation tools? No, you did not. If you want to write "how it should be pronounced", then great! Do so! But use the tools provided for this purpose; do not assume a reader will know the difference between your intent and your actions.

This is really getting tedious. Rather than wasting time trying to convince me that my actions (which I've already explained in excruciating detail) were in error, why not try to learn something from this? Follow the process and you'll do fine; don't and you won't. Just like life, it's as simple as that. UncleBubba (Talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in the parenthesis read: "from Greek "geo", Earth, and "diairein" pronounced "thihaereen", to divide". It is prety clear to me that "from Greek" means that the following words are Greek. Also, the point that I try to make is that my edit was wrongly considered vandalism not that it was perfect or that it shouldn't have been reverted. The fact that I didn't use the accepted APA pronounciation tools although it is an acceptable excuse for a revert it is not an acceptable excuse for labeling an edit as vandalism. You can look down on the way I choose to give the right pronounciation but you cannot deny that I tried to give a pronounciation, which means I didn't want people to read the word "diairein" like "diarrhea", neither can you say that not giving the pronounciation in APA form is equivalent to vandalism. Ergo, why vandalism? Nxavar (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have nothing more to add then I think I will add another case in the list "What is not vandalism" in the Wikipedia:VAND article giving the example of "diairein", the object of this discussion, which, although an actuall Ancient Greek word, sounds like "diarrhea" and may be considered vandalism, like in your case. I still believe though that you could have understood by yourself that I wasn't vandalising, even though my case was not specifically mentioned in the list of "What is not vandalism" and that an apology is a proper response on your part. Also, I checked it out and it is not APA, it is IPA. Nxavar (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The interesting thing about this thread is that, although early on you admitted your actions were careless, you seem loathe to accept the events were entirely the results of your actions. If I spray paint a word on a wall, it's likely to be seen as vandalism, regardless of whether or not my intentions at the time were good.

While your intentions may have been to give a pronunciation, you did it in such a way that it looked like vandalism. Did you use the Wikipedia tools for including pronunciation descriptions? No. You protested that it was a Greek word but did you insert your text in Greek? No.

More to the point, did you stop to consider why, in an article titled "An Introduction to General Relativity" (and clearly labeled as a simple-to-understand synopsis), there should even be such a detailed description as this.

Step back, man--look at the forest!

Nevertheless, submit your edits to the guideline pages if you wish; that's your job as an editor. Please remember, however, that there are people that will take a dim view if you try to carry this discussion/argument/debate into that venue without good reason.

Nxavar, I really do hope you eventually learn how to avoid this sort of trouble in the future. A couple of suggestions, if I may: If spelling is not your strong suit, get a browser with a spellchecker (e.g. Firefox). Misspelled words can truly diminish the weight of your argument. When you're editing Talk pages, please indent your responses as I've done so above--it makes the conversation so much easier to follow.

BTW, good catch on the IPA/APA thing. At the time, I had been editing APA citations; I guess got 'em confused. Oh, well... UncleBubba (Talk) 21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I said it enough times but apparently I have to say it again. This is not about whether or not it was a good idea for you to revert my edit. It is about characterizing the edit as vandalism for God's sake! If you insist on your opinion that you were right to describe my edit as vandalism you should use actual arguments and respond to my arguments on the subject. Using metaphors without explaining which is which is not responsible on your part. Also note that careless actions are not vandalism. You cannnot "carelessly" spay paint a word on a wall.

As I said in my previous comment, to which apparently you did not pay much attention, not giving the pronouciation in the right form was something that justified a revert but that cannot be considered vandalism. The same can be said about the form in which I gave the Greek word, although you have certainly run into etymologies that give the Greek word only in English letters. As a matter of fact, the previous form of the etymology was giving the words in English letters and nobody had a problem with that. It was there for one and a half years (since 2:43 17 September 2008) and made by Markus Poessel who, judging from his talk page and his contributions, is a respectable contributor and not a one hit vandalist. It should also be noted that noone had a problem for that one and a half year that an etymology for the word geodesic was present in the article and I really think that the correctness of adding an etymology to a non-technical and introductory article is a matter of opinion. One could argue that etymologies are a good way to explain something new to the uninitiated and as such can be justified as a part of an intoductory article.

Anyway, I thought that the really annoying thing about my edit that caused you to label it as vandalism was that "diairein" sounded like "diarrhea". I suppose you understood that you should not have been quick to make that judgement.

Please read carefully my answer before responding. This conversation will certainly move faster if you don't repeat arguments that I have already answered. I also hope that you understand what I have said since my first comment: "While my edit to the Introduction to general relativity certainly had issues and I should have thought more before making it, it is an extreme to be called vandalism". Which means that this discussion is supposed to be about why my edit was considered vandalism, not about why it was reverted. What you say from now on must show that my edit wasn't just bad but that it was definately vandalism. Otherwise you should apologize for labeling my edit as such. Which is what you will probably do because if there really was an argument that showed that my edit was definetely vandalism you would have used it from the beginning and in your case this was about the way "diairein" sounded, to which I have already answered.

As for the identation, there are people that don't think it is a good idea to add an ident after every comment. In many of the Wikipedia discussion pages you can find people that do not add an extra ident to their comment if the previous contributor has done so to his and among them are respectable users with many contributions to Wikipedia. But, since it is silly to start an edit war on the matter of identation and this is supposed to be your talk page, I will accept your suggestion.

As for my spelling, I am well aware that I don't make terrible mistakes and I don't think they can really distract you from understanding my arguments. Also, you shouldn't judge another person on his spelling strength but rather on his arguments. Is it a Wikipedia policy to speak and write perfect English in order to be an accepted contributor? After all, this is a talk page, not a Wikipedia article. Nxavar (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am becoming convinced that you really enjoy beating this dead horse. However, if you are trying to maintain a civil tone, using phrasing like, "to which apparently you did not pay much attention" is probably not the best way to obtain cooperation from someone else.

While it is unlikely one could carelessly spray-paint a word on a wall, carelessly spray-painting a wall is a simple thing that can--and does--happen, and it can make a real mess. In the small amount of time I have to donate to the project, I examine hundreds of edits, some of which are honest or innocent mistakes and some of which turn out to be vandalism, which I treat as such. In the last few days, I've removed "penises" and "waxing your pubes" from Evolution [1], gotten rid of "nipples" and "wanking rabbits" from Natural Selection [2], halted H. G. Wells' attempts to "fuck" a "sexy bitch" after "striping her bra", and "liking her puccy" [3], and changed a "butt face" back to a troll [4]. I always try to assume good faith but if I performed an exegetical analysis on each one, my productivity would be drastically reduced and my contribution of time to the encyclopedia project would be effectively nullified, which is unacceptable to me.

My suggestion about spelling was not intended to insult you; it was a suggestion I thought might help you present your argument(s) better in the future. Some people naturally spell well and some do not. (English may not even be your native tongue, in which case I'd say your English is a helluva lot better than my whatever_language_you_speak.) My point was simply that presented with two statements:

• "You have made a real mess of the area; I need you to clean it up."

and

• "yoo have made a reel messs if the aria; i nead yuu to clene is up."

serious people will tend to pay more attention to the former than the latter. The bottom line, though, is that it's free advice; take it or leave it. To me, though, poor spelling or grammar is distracting, although I was able to understand what you wrote.

Try to cut us "cleanup editors" a little slack, please; dealing with the daily flood of malicious edits is bad enough. My advice to you is to pay careful attention to your edits, use the "Preview" button, and decide before you type whether the change you're making is an improvement or not. The only way Wikipedia improves is be everyone working to make it so. If you ever want a really eye-opening experience, try patrolling the recent changes list or, better yet, the high-vandalism list [5] and reverting the bad edits. UncleBubba (Talk) 09:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

UncleBubba, this is definitely not a dead horse. It is more of a horse that refuses to die although it is constantly being hit. Just look at the status of your arguments (new ones not included).

UncleBubba

• "The sentence appeared to me to be gibberish" argument: down
• "diarrhea" argument: down
• "How was I supposed to know it was a Greek word" argument: down
• "not giving the Greek word in Greek" argument: down
• "giving the pronounciation in the wrong form" argument: down
• "This is not a place for etymologies" argument: down

What I understand from the above is that this discussion is very probable to end in my favor. The fact that you always come up with some arguments does not mean that you must be right or that the discussion is even. You need at least one good argument to end this discussion or say that there are arguments for both sides and the discussion is even. Countless bad ones mean nothing. I remind you the status of my argument:

Nxavar

• "There are reasons for a revert but not for labeling the edit as vandalism" argument: still holds

As for the criteria of judging whether an argument "still holds" or is "down", I consider that an argument that is still backed "still holds" whereas an argument that has been answered and not backed in subsequent comments is "down".

Concerning the non-civil tone of "to which apparently you did not pay much attention", I think I had the right to protest about the fact that you made me repeat an argument that I had just made in my previous comment, even though there was no need to make it clearer.

As for what you have added to support your opinion:

I really think that you cannot carelessly spray paint anything on a wall. After all, what would be the innocent reason for which one would use a spray outdoors? Also, your metaphor tries to portray me as doing something that is outright vandalism without explaining why. In your previous comments you used actual arguments, to which I have happily replied. I suggest that you continue to use arguments if you want this discussion to be serious. You can always use metaphors if you like but you must combine them with arguments.

I was surprised to notice that you compared my edit to edits that could not be anything else except vandalism. For my edit, on the contrary, there were plenty of reasons, which I have already explained in my previous comments, for one to think that it was not vandalism. Do you really think that the guys that made these edits could argue that their edits were not vandalism?

As for assuming good faith, you cannot try to assume good faith in the cases that you mentioned but you can try in other cases where the contributor (who is a contributor with a proper account and some history of contributions, not an unknown IP) who made the edit can present you arguments about what he did. If you really assumed good faith, the mere fact that I presented you some arguments should be enough for you to apologize.

As for my spelling I have not made a single spelling mistake that was as bad as the ones in your example, let alone fill a sentence with them. I have neither made as many spelling mistakes as there are in that sentence in all my comments. You have actually supported my argument with the example you gave since you had to make a sentence full of terrible spelling errors to support that spelling mistakes diminish the value of an argument and make it difficult to be understood. Which means that in my case, where spelling errors are relatively scarce and subtle, there is definitely no problem.

Last but not least, I should point out to you that labeling an edit as "vandalism" is quite harsh. You really have to explain yourself if you have erroneously labeled an edit that was not "vandalism" as "vandalism".

PS: I did not understand if you imply that the only reason I continue to argue is enjoyment. This is not true as can be clear from my last point in this comment and I really think we should leave the enjoyment factor out of the equation as comments concerning the enjoyment of either side are close to ad hominem attacks. Also, I must point out that even though you said that "This is getting tedious" and "I am becoming convinced that you really enjoy beating this dead horse." you are writing bigger and bigger comments. Nxavar (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Case Insensitivity

Don't you think that the titles of the Wikipedia articles should be case-insensitive, at least for the first letter of each word? For example Introduction to General Relativity should be automatically redirected to Introduction to general relativity. Is there a special place to request and/or discuss the addition of a new software feature? Nxavar (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like so-called "title case", where the first and last words, along with significant middle words, are capitalized (And Looks a Bit Like This). However, WP:MOS doesn't agree. Ya gotta fight the fights ya can win... UncleBubba (Talk) 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not about how the titles should be written, it is about redirection. I guess noone has a problem with that. Nxavar (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy caps, Batman! I hadn't tried that and didn't know it wouldn't work. Sorry I misunderstood your point. The only explanation I can think of is that the underlying wiki software was developed in the Unix/Linux world, where things tend to be case-sensitive rather than in the case-insensitive Windows world. Unfortunately, I don't really know how to request/discuss new software features but the main wiki software development project is hosted here. I'd start at that site. UncleBubba (Talk) 23:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Excessive tagging on Pedro Paulet

Whilst you have of course acted entirely within the letter of policy, your recent fact tagging of Pedro Paulet looks more like a POV-pushing attempt to discredit the article and remove its content, rather than an attempt to make a better encyclopedia. I will of course welcome your anticipated research and editing of this article to improve it by adding the references you've just called for. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy, the simple fact of the matter is that the article--as I first saw it--made a number of unsupported claims about Mr. Paulet. Later, an IP-only editor came along and added a bunch of stuff that seems to claim Mr. Paulet designed reaction motors (without saying what kind) and propulsion systems (again without saying what type), along with an airplane invented before the Wright brothers' 1903 flight. The unsubstantiated edits also tell us he proposed nuclear-powered lunar flights (before nuclear power was harnessed), was a diplomat, the inventor of a torpedo plane, creator of research that allowed Peru to install a telegraph system, not to mention the founding of a technical school, extensive study in Europe, and the creation of a technical magazine--all in eleven years.

While I've never heard of him and don't know him from Adam, I do know that, if he truly did all this, everyone should know him. Before I go shouting from the rooftops, though, I would really like to see the person(s) that added these rather remarkable claims cite them.

You are wrong in accusing me of POV-pushing. In fact, if I'm pushing anything, I'm NPOV-pushing. To maintain a good encyclopedia, one must cull the unsubstantiated, the fringe, the nationalistic revisionism, etc. and stick to what's reliable and verifiable. Editors that don't follow the guidelines can damage Wikipedia's trusted reputation.

And no, I've no intention of doing that research, any more than I intend to research the claims of oxyhydrogen gas-mileage enhancers, cold-fusion reactors, Breatherian diets, the Flat-Earth Society, or some nut who believes the Earth is at the center of a 5000 year-old Universe.

I will, however, continue to edit or tag unsubstantiated assertions that are diametrically opposed to the body of mainstream knowledge. Do you want to change my mind? Knock off the ad hominem attacks and show me facts. UncleBubba (Talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Series of Tubes

I was making the point that a tube is the perfect analogy to describe the issues of a long fat pipe. The date of the RFC is irrelevant because it defines the standards being used today, and the principles still apply. See Bandwidth-delay_product BruceBarnett (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, in this case the date is very relevant; the RFC you cited is an April Fools joke about (if I recall correctly) the high percentage of beards on the faces of conference attendees.

Nevertheless, the point of the technical discussion in this article (on Ted Steven's statement) was to explain why his comparison of network response time to mail delivery delays was ridiculous. Anything more is superfluous and beyond the scope of the article. UncleBubba (Talk) 16:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Changes to Next Generation Page

Got your messages, I'm new to Wiki...I will make a note of the proper procedures to edit a page in the future.

Thanks! MitchFX1 (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome! Actually, I didn't revert your edit; I saw someone else had and thought it would be a good idea to tell you it had been done. Please keep contributing--that's the only way the encyclopedia gets better! Let me know if I can help. UncleBubba (Talk) 01:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global Warming

You're right about general guidelines on talk pages. I'm a bit old school about this and prefer to get rid of obvious trolling as quickly as possible. We had an immense amount of that at the global warming talk page from December until a month or so ago and I have sometimes been rather aggressive in removing or archiving. As things are now much calmer I'll adjust my approach. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My main concern--and I'm not sure I expressed it--is that "we" keep the high road. Oh, how I want to smack some folks upside the head from time to time! (And most of the folks to whom I'm referring are in my office, not here.) I've always tried to go with the "Do Not Feed The Trolls" advice but I don't think it'll work here. Any ideas? Have you been able to quash one of these without getting yourself all dirty? (Dirty, BTW, as in "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it!") — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

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

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Some silliness

If we're socks we must be rich socks with SSTs to transport us about 500 miles within a matter of minutes so we can edit from different locations! 71.77.20.119 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

I don’t understand how to use wiki image policy; can you upload the two picture One of Tommy Lucchese and the other Matthew Madonna

• Tommy Lucchese image

http://www.biography.com/notorious/images/crime_files/tommy_lucchese.jpg

It could be free its found on these other sites 

http://www.biography.com/images/database_images/lucchese_Tommy_130x171.jpg

http://www.biography.com/notorious/crimefiles.do?action=view&catName=Gangsters&profileId=328680

• Matthew Madonna

http://af11.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/matthew-madonna.jpg

It could be free its here http://af11.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/department-of-buildings-bribe-scheme-may-net-mafia-bigs/

Or is the image against the image copyright rules of Wiki

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyBR (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Day The Music Died

Hey UncleBubba, me and you seem to be the two residents keeping the article 'The Day The Music Died' in good shape. Seeing that you're better at this kind of thing than I am, will you please look at the edits that some unknown user made on the article, and bring it back to Wikipedia standards. Cause the way it reads now, its clearly messed up. Dickclarkfan1 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Yeck, what a mess of edits! Not a single citation, either. And from an anonymous account, to boot. I wonder if someone was trying to get a quotable source for a term paper? Probably not, considering the time of year but stuff like this really frosts me, espectially the ignorance of aviation (and aviation regulations) exhibited by some members of our species. Sorry for the delay, too; we've been out of town. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 11:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hi Bubbba, the sentence in the lead is correct to say "by far". It is sourced. See Numerous deaths have occurred after chiropractic manipulations. The risks of this treatment by far outweigh its benefit. QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking the word neck does not add much to the sentence and is a bit of a distraction IMO. Earlier in the lead there is a link to spinal manipulation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede you're correct about the "by far", which appeared to be a weasel-word. However, the inclusion of the detail link to the C-spine is useful because most folks don't realize the "neck" isn't the entire cervical spine, which--mainly due to its small size--is more easily damaged than are the thoracic or lumbar vertibrae (C1-C6 especially). If you can think of a better way to communicate the information, feel free; I was only trying to clean up what appeared to be a bit of a mess. Whatcha think? Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you believe most folks don't realize the "neck" isn't the entire cervical spine. Did you read about it somewhere?

I think you agree the "by far" part is appropriate since that is the way it is written in the source. The sentence is not a bit of a mess. It is a complete mess. There is OR, V, and LEAD violations related to the sentence. See Talk:Chiropractic#Failed verification. There is a proposal to fix the problems. See Talk:Chiropractic#Concise sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I do agree with the "by far" wording. I also agree the sentence is a complete mess. However, my objective wasn't to clean up the entire sentence, rather I wanted to remove the phrase "risks of risks of" (see change log) when I saw what looks like a weasel-word phrase. Since it sounds like you really feel strongly about it and monitor the page closely, I'm gonna step back and leave it with you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you assume most folks don't realize the "neck" isn't the entire cervical spine. Did you read about it somewhere or is this an assumption?

There has been major changes to the article like rewriting the sentence in the lead but other editors wanna step back and allow the original research to continue. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism at Goddard

Excuse me UncleBubba, what's with the false accusations of vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#September_2010 I reverted an unmotivated change by an anonymous user and said so in the bleeping commit message. If you had taken one look at the commit message or my contributions you would have known the accusation of vandalism is ludicrous. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

When I post something on your Talk page, please reply there (as requested), as I will not chase a conversation in a circle. My response is on your Talk page. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Understood, but I only made two reversions, and the issue was resolved on the talk page. Serendi^podous 19:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I wish I could get folks to read the directions before posting. I moved this entire thing back to where I posted the original comment. The reply DOES NOT belong here! As I said before, I will not chase a conversation in a circle. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)