User talk:Friend of the Facts

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Friend of the Facts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Orangemarlin

Again, welcome! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good job

Excellent. However, watch for the war that follows. BTW, you have the most unusual set of edits I've ever seen. Interesting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Using google to look for spelling mistakes.

Don't forget to use ~~~~ (four tilde's) to sign whenever you post on a talk page (including your own). It tells us who is talking, and time stamps it. Do not sign when you're editing the article space, of course. Spelling errors are everywhere. Also, remember to review WP:ENGVAR. There are only a few places where we change from one version of English to another. Maybe if an article is 90% American English, and you find 2 or 3 words in British English, I might change there. But if it's an article about a British subject (say the Queen or London), it should always be British English. I am always reverting people who think "rationalise" is misspelled. I think there are long edit wars on that! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate this. Friend of the Facts (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your efforts to fix spelling mistakes in articles, and to encourage you to keep going, I hereby award you this Barnstar. YSSYguy (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!! Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

How are you finding all of these spelling errors? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I do a Google search like this:

"incorrectly spelt word" site:en.wikipedia.org

Then I go through the results. A lot of what comes back is talk pages but I ignore them and only focus on finding articles to fix. Friend of the Facts (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's great! Using Google's exclude feature seems to help filter out talk and other namespaces: "tpyo" site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ -Talk -User -Template -Category Zackexley (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. But wouln't that also exclude articles that have the word "user" or "talk" in them somewhere but aren't talk pages or user pages? Friend of the Facts (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Holy Red Herrings !

This edit [1] and supporting sources are brilliant. You are the definition of WP:BOLD. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources were found by NW who also made the first edit to the definition. I only removed the "death" bit because it didnt match what the sources NW added were saying. I didn't notice the other source that was left at the end so maybe I acted a little too fast. But no harm done because it's easy to put the page back to the old way and keep the discussion going. Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I can only go by the data. Your edit seems the best fit curve. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I am open to "death" being there if that's how references define it commonly but that doesn't seem to be the case from NW's research. Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew I liked you. Death doesn't belong there, since science really has a standard definition for life. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've argued both sides and I'm not seeing/finding/hearing anything that supports "death". Odd. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Like a lot of science (evolution, global warming, etc), political debate makes it appear there is a scientific debate. The mass of cells that make up a fetus are "living", only in a strictly biochemical sense, in that they can process energy, manufacture proteins, etc. But it's not "alive" like a fully functional being. So, as an organism, it cannot and does not die, because it was never alive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to the male angler fish. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I blame fluoridated water. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Alan Seabaugh. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I thought edit summaries were only needed for doing stuff you have to explain not straightforward things like fixing spelling. I'll try to use edit summaries in the future then. Friend of the Facts (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

They are. A nice middle ground (that satisfies no one by definition) is to mark any edit not worthy of an edit summary as minor. NW (Talk) 20:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

By "they are" you mean edit descriptions are needed for even small things like spelling fixes right? Thanks. Friend of the Facts (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I meant the opposite. In my opinion, edit summaries are only necessary for anything that wouldn't be immediately obvious from looking at the diff, in my view anyway. Other editors use them more frequently than that. NW (Talk) 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion lead sentence, redux #100

Thoughts? NW (Talk) 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the sentence into two parts was a good way to stick to how most references define abortion in terms of viability but also cover the exception of abortion at a later stage. But I think this probably should have been discussed before it was put into action. I definitely support it though and I hope it's something people can agree on. Friend of the Facts (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC) The problems are: the technical term for the intentionally induced termination of a viable fetus is "abortion", and "before birth" is unclear and inaccurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.144 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added to an currently open Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)