User talk:Aaarrrggh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi, Aaarrrggh. There isn't anything obviously wrong with your attempted edits on the Atheism page. However, if you study the history of the article, you will see that this page has undergone about 500 edits over the past few months, mostly taking the form of edit/revert/edit/revert, precisely in the area which you are trying to edit; namely, the definition. The article was in "protected" status for 25 days as a cooling off period in the edit war, and just came off that status. Administrators are hanging back waiting to see if the editors can compromise or the article has to be protected again. Right now, progress is being made on the Talk page regarding the definition, and while that is happening, people are letting the current definition stand, despite an emerging consensus that it is not adequate. Please refrain from editing the main article and triggering a renewed edit-war. But, by all means, participate in the Talk page discussion where people are working hard to achieve a consensus. Incidentally, welcome to Wikipedia, and good luck with your future contributions!

P.S. I'm assuming this new user account isn't a sockpuppet for one of the parties to the current dispute, but if it is: surely you can't think that is going to work. Your efforts would be better directed toward the emerging compromise, which is close to succeeding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BM (talkcontribs) 15:11, 4 December 2004 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 09:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Just to say, keep up the good work on removing AL from Darwin.

I disagree with the above comment, of course. Please read the debate before reverting, and add comments. I explained in detail why I thought the coincidence was relevant and good writing. I mention similar citations (SJ Gould essay and Scientific American columns) not as an appeal to authority, but simply as examples of writers generally considered good using examples of coicidences to illustrate a topic.
Lastly, please stop shouting. All caps off is more civil. Vincent 11:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The shouting I think was fully justified by the fact that you have added this irrelevant information to the article on AT LEAST 16 separate occasions. It is consistently removed, and this is entirely due to the fact that it is out of place in an introduction to the life of Charles Darwin, and has no relevance whatsoever in the article. And what you have demonstrated above is exactly an appeal to authority. I am once again removing this information, and I will do so every single time you add it.

To better illustrate this point - imagine you know nothing about Darwin, and come to wikipedia to learn a little about him. You start reading the article and come across this point. To me, it would just seem like a baffling point that serves no purpose and teaches me nothing whatsoever about Darwin. It is such a tiny little piece of trivia, and I cannot understand why anybody could be so obssessed with it as to add it at least 17 times (as I see you have now re-inserted it once again). I will not stop removing it, simply because it is completely irrelevant, and teaches us nothing about Charles Darwin.

Oh, and thank you for your comments William. It's comforting in some way to know that I'm not the only one who is getting frustrated by the repeated insertion of such an irrelevant point. Aaarrrggh 11:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you knew nothing of Darwin, then associating him with Lincoln immediately and vividly will localize him in time for you. I'm not particularly obsessed with the fact (which I honestly do find interesting and appropriate) I'm offended by the deletions and the name calling that has accompanied them. It's not like I was repeating the false story of his death bed conversion, or for that matter the equally false story that he lost his faith because of his scientific discoveries. Oh, and shouting is never justified, you're just losing your temper. 16 times in a week is less than three times a day, so I am following the 3-revert rule. Cheers. Vincent 12:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was certainly not involved in any name calling towards you. I appreciate the fact that the information you are adding is factually correct (and I have also noticed that you have added some perfectly relevant information to the article in the past), but the problem I have with it is not related to accuracy, it is related to relevance. And yes, I was shouting because I was losing my temper. This was justifiably so - the fact you are adding is simply not relevant, has been deleted numerous times by people other than myself, and is something you do not seem prepared to discard. Can you not see that it has no place in this encyclopedia article, and especially not in an introductory section regarding Darwin's early life. What does Abraham Lincoln have to do with Darwin's early life? Nothing. Do you see my point? ::Aaarrrggh 13:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
<sigh> That's why it's a coincidence, but it is still an interesting one. Unless you're british, and then you're insulted at having Darwin the Holy smeared by association with the evil Lincoln. (I'm Canadian BTW, not American.) Anyway we're in a tit-for-tat war, with you and others losing your tempers, resorting to shouting and expletives. I have developed my argument, I have given distinct reasons for keeping the mention, while you guys just keep repeating your "it's irrelevant" justification. Hey, I am not the only one to point this out. Google generates 4000 results on a search for AL, CD, and b'day. Vincent 06:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus. Aaarrrggh 11:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Darwin Arbitration[edit]

I have just asked for arbitration. From you I have asked the committee to request you stop removing the fact from the article. Vincent 04:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Hopefully they won't. But there are plenty of other people who will, anyway.
Also see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vfp15 and Charles Darwin/Evidence gK ¿? 02:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was actually absent from wikipedia for some time, and missed all of the arbitration proceedings. I was glad with the outcome however :) Aaarrrggh 07:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Hi! I just thought that I'd have a word about strategy/tactics on the Creationism article. If the range of positions is from 10 (Ungtts) to -10 (you), then I suppose I'm somewhere about 8 or 9, but I'm trying my hardest to look for compromise over material without compromise of integrity. It's important to make edits that the pro-creationist can live with, just as it's important for them to make edits that you can live with; unless one side or the other digs its heels in and refuses to allow any compromise, that should lead to an article worthy of Wikipedia. The trouble is that if you're too gung ho about your position (whatever its merits), you risk pushing Ungtss into that kind of stubborn posture, and we're in for an edit war, with no winners. I'm not saying that that's happened yet — just giving a friendly warning not to get too hot under the collar. Not that I don't get that way myself sometimes, but I try to stave it off until there's no other useful response (it still doesn't do any good, but it doesn't do any harm either). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem Mel Etitis, although if you look at the recent post I made on the creationism talk page, I have just agreed (at least partly) with what Ungtss just said about not defining creationism as the 'rejection of science'. I made this edit only a few minutes ago, so you probably haven't seen it yet. By the way, when you say I'm -10 and you rate yourself as 8 or 9, do you mean to say you tend to favour the creationist arguments? I know this is largely irrelevant, as the majority of the changes you have made have been quite fair in my opinion (and I do admit I can become a little agressive sometimes, although I am trying hard to be as open as I can be. I believe my recent post on the creationism talk page reflects this), but I didn't have you down as a creationist advocate. Perhaps I just misunderstood your point above (placing me on the negative scale made me think you stood at 8 or 9 on the opposite end). I'm asking you this out of pure curiosity by the way, of course you don't actually have to reply if you don't want to. Aaarrrggh 18:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're quite right — I was careless; I meant -8 or -9. I've been trying to save a comment to the Talk:Creationism page for the last ten minutes, but have had five edit conflicts in a row... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
lol, yeah it's actually almost been like chatting in real time for the last half hour or so. I have just noticed that Ungstt has reverted your most recent edit that I actually agreed with. I am going to change this back to how you left it. I have explained in further detail on the talk page. Aaarrrggh 19:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Reply to your message on my page:) it's a pleasure. In fact, on the whole Ungtss is one of the more civilised creationist types on Wikipedia, so that (even though discussions can get a bit heated at times), things are generally easier than with other articles. I'm planning to leave the Talk:Creationism alone for a little while, until it's quietened down a bit; then I'll archive the firct part of the page. It's getting huge, which is part of the reason for all the edit conflicts — it takes so long to save an edit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with you about Ungtss. We clearly disagree quite strongly in terms of our perspective, but I have to credit him for his overall attitude. One of my first experiences after having signed up to wikipedia was in taking a role in a very heated edit war on the atheism page. User samspade was trolling and determined to write about atheism from a christian perspective. In contrast to samspade, ungsst has been very civil and has at least taken part in dialogue and reasoning. I think it is partly because of the experience with mr. Spade that I came into the creationism article a little hot-headedely - I think I was expecting a similar experience. Anyway, hopefully with the likes of us and others (feloniousmonk for one), we will be able to make sure the article doesn't relapse back into anything like its former state. Aaarrrggh 20:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I encourage the more rational (pro-science) people not to give up here or anywhere on this issue. It has been my policy throughout 45 or more years of scientific work to ignore astrology, flying-saucer advocacy, Uri Geller, The Bermuda Triangle, Chariots of the Gods, and such tripe, because the more attention you give them, the more prominent they become. A prime example was Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, which Harlow Shapley tried to have suppressed, only looking like a martinet and aggrandizing Velikovsky as a martyr. There are BIG differences in the case of Creationism/Intelligent-Design. One is that we face not a small, scattered passle of nincompoops, but a number of well-organized fanatics. Next, they do not just publish newsstand and cheap bookstore potboilers, but they invade school boards and legislatures. Finally, and worst for the future of science, many of these people seem to be pretty intelligent and they read a lot of scientific matter, understanding it in part, but then warping it. The warps are subtle. For example, in seeing the original Wikipedia "liquefaction" entry I only noticed that it omitted the liquifaction of gases (Ammonia, Nitrogen, and so on, culminating with Heike Kamerlingh Onnes' Nobel Prize for Helium). I added a line about gases, but then saw comments and changes from Zeizmic and Vsmith (as I recall) who know more geology than I to the effect that a lot of the science was wrong. Thus the original author appears to have partly digested some geology materials in order to insert ideas based on biblical cataclysms and a link to Creationism. I am glad that Zeizmic and Vsmith took an interest and fixed up a lot. At any rate, the neo-Luddites from the Intelligent Design school are crafty enough to understand and quote some science, thus grafting their idea system into it where they can produce a superficially plausible result. This approach is hard to attack, but it must crumble under careful scrutiny and we have to engage therein or the next generation will be raised with a view of science that is warped.Pdn 17:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and encouragement. I agree with everything you have said. I will not allow wikipedia to become a haven for anti-science agenda setters such as Salva, and I will continue to make sure pseudoscientific nonsense such as creationism and intelligent design are treated cautiously and critically here. I'm not trying to supress information, but I am trying to protect the truth and to supress dishonest agenda's where and when I can see them. Thank you for your kind words :-) Aaarrrggh 00:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


I understand your point, and indeed I agree, that creationism probably has no basis in science. I have heard many creationists claim that evidence exists to back creationism, but that evolutionists are ignoring it. I find that hard to believe, and I have never seen anything even suggesting that could be true.

Nevertheless, if Salva will present valid points, I will, and you should, listen to them. Any post that will contribute to Wikipedia becoming/remaining a "respected resource for information" should be included. -- Ec5618 17:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree in principle with what you are saying, but the problem is that in my experience, creationists tend to use all kinds of deceptive techniques to try to bend facts and to bend evidence to their own pre-decided conclusions. If Salva can do the impossible and provide valid reasons and evidence for creationism, I won't have a problem with him putting such information into the article. If he tries to bend facts or uses outright distortion and lies to promote his agenda, I will step in to stop him. I am not worried about real information EC, I am just concerned about the inevitability of the kind of edits that I think Salva wishes to make. If he proves me wrong and adds valuable information to the article, I will not stop him. Aaarrrggh 17:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Then we're in agreement. Now, let's try to expand this article. -- Ec5618 17:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kansas School Board[edit]

I have written to each member and have gotten some great feedback from one, agreement from 2 more. I am asking the one hot-shot if I can forward her mails on. If so, I'll ask for an e-mail from you if you want to see her mail. She warns that the Kansas activity is spreading to other states, but she feels that by 2006 lawsuits and embarrassment will give her and her supporters (now 4 out of ten board members) a good shot at reversing the disaster that is occurring (in Kansas).Pdn 06:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Pdn - I would REALLY appreciate you sending me any correspondence you have had with any of the members of the Kansas School Board. I will offer my full support to anybody on that Board who wishes to teach real science as opposed to creationism in Kansas city schools. If you are able to forward any of these emails, please feel free to send them here: (I know the email address is a little garbled, but I do use it). Any help you or anybody else would like regarding this issue, I'll only be too pleased to give :-) 14:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to Inquiry[edit]

Aaarrrggh, you are cordially invited to join Inquiry. Adraeus 12:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 13:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


It's Aaarrggh here once again Adraeus, for some reason I seem to be having a lot of problems logging into wikipedia recently. If you arrange an offsite project for the same purpose I would be delighted to help you. I had a quick look on your userpage and noticed you're a member of CSICOP. I think I would be interested in joining them at some point myself. I have recently joined a humanist group in Manchester where I live, and have been thinking more recently about taking an active role in promoting not only atheism and humanism, but critical thought itself to a wider audience. It is something I've been thinking about quite a lot recently, having been greatly impressed by the methods taken by the likes of James Randi and Penn and Teller. A friend of mine who had disagreed with me for a long time about the claims of physics and other such nonsense was recently 'converted' to the skeptical approach after watching that James Randi video I just linked to. He actually said it was a combination of me discussing these issues with him, and the presentation given by Randi that finally won him over, but it gave me a lot more confidence as it was the first time I had ever been directly responsible for changing somebody else's outlook. Anyway, I guess I'm saying I'm definately interested in your project, and I'd also be interested in helping you out with your 'centre for atheism' project too, if you would like me to. 14:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Miscellaneous critique..." section of Creationism[edit]

I appreciate the effort you've been putting into Creationism, but I'm curious what you'd think about just removing the entire "Miscellaneous critique..." section. It reads to me like it's simply restating the information in the "Scientific critique..." section. Also, it has, to my mind, a large number of POV-laden statements, including the one you're currently going back and forth with Dabbler on, about whether to characterize young-earth creationists as making a "strong challenge" toward evolution or manifesting "aggressive hostility" toward evolution. While I agree with your comment about the "strong challenge" language being problematic in terms of making the YEC case sound like it constitutes a strong logical challenge, when it really doesn't, the characterization of what they are engaged in as "aggressive hostility" is equally problematic in a different way, because it exhibits a clear anti-creationist POV. And generally, that whole sentence is problematic from a POV standpoint, in that it basically is undertaking to paint young-earth creationists' motivations in a negative light. I don't think a neutral presentation should attribute motives to one side of a controversy from the perspective of the other side. That's what people do when they're actually debating an issue: they attempt to undercut the other side's arguments by calling its motives into question. As I understand the NPOV policy, a good Wikipedia article scrupulously avoids that sort of thing.

Anyway, as I said on the article's talk page recently, I notice a lot of POV problems throughout that "Miscellaneous critique..." section, and given how it doesn't really provide new information not already covered in the "Scientific critique..." section, I think it makes a lot of sense, rather than wrestling over each POV problem individually, to just delete the whole section. I think the article would be stronger as a result. Also, the energy currently going into reverting back and forth within that section could then be applied to improvements elsewhere in the article.

What do you think? John Callender 15:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright tags[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Breast.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Krystyn Dominik 04:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Krystyn. I've replied to this query on your talk page. If you could add the tags for me, I'd be grateful :). Thanks Aaarrrggh 16:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I hardly know anything about laws and stuff. According to the image that you pointed out, the tag claims it is a GFDL meaning it is okay to edit/distribute/make profit/etc., on the image. I will replaced replaced the {{unverified}} tag with {{gfdl}}. --Krystyn Dominik 17:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I really don't know much about this kind of thing myself to be honest. Aaarrrggh 17:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for your message. Am I safe in assuming you are an atheist? Andycjp 16th August 2005.

 ;-D Aaarrrggh 08:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Science is Broken[edit]

Just in case you are interested. Found this page explaining what is wrong with the current practice of "science". Written by a non-creationist biologist. RossNixon 11:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The "logic" in the reference cited is probably as good as its spelling:

"Sometimes it is shear (sic) propaganda that overtakes science, as in global warming. " ("shear" instead of "sheer")! Pdn 15:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Ross, I find it desperately sad that people such as yourself have such a child-like view of the world around them. It seems to me that you will cling onto anything that 'shows' a 'flaw' within science. You don't care about the validity or truth of anything, as long as it serves your own hilariously stupid agenda. Your bible is not actually true ross - give it a break :-) Aaarrrggh 15:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha I read that link and it was soo bullshit Bifgis 03:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Evolution article[edit]

Look, we had reached a consensus on the Evolution page - I'm sure Nowa and I, among others would have appreciated it if you had brought the proposition to the table beforehand. Anyway, I don't fully understand why you think that the new revision was pushing a "creationist" agenda. If you refer to the discussion carried out before you arrived to the scene, you will see that a comprehensive and fully justified conclusion was reached.

It has been awhile since we last spoke on Wikipedia, and I admit that a degree of arrogance had previously fueled my cause, but I have taken in a lot of knowledge since then, and have discovered that it is a frivalous endeavor to try and gain any credentials whatsoever as a Young-Earth creationist. There is no scientific objectivity in the minds of fundamentalists, atheist and theist alike, so let's just both try and bring our bigotries away from Wikipedia so that we can write a good article, OK?

While I do not believe in the YE business, I think that the ID philosophies are justifiable, and valid in today's scientific arena. You cannot dismiss this fact. Creationism today is not the same as it was 100 years ago, and the entire reason that this controversy has resurfaced anew is that science has progressed. So read Nowa's statements again and rethink your impulsivity. Salva 02:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"While I do not believe in the YE business, I think that the ID philosophies are justifiable, and valid in today's scientific arena. You cannot dismiss this fact."
It is not a fact, and yes, I deny it. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, and has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is a politically designed euphemism for creationism, created by christian fundamentalists to get around the 1987 supreme court ruling that banned the teaching of creationism in American public schools for violating the constitutional separation of church and state. The 'controversy' lies entirely in the public arena, and in the public arena alone. It is nothing more than a clever little technique of christian fundametnalist propaganda, and is totally invalid. Interestingly, I had something of a religious conversion of my own recently, and will of course be insisting that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is taught in Kansas schools after the recent atrocities against science that took place there.
"Creationism today is not the same as it was 100 years ago, and the entire reason that this controversy has resurfaced anew is that science has progressed."
Creationism today is pretty much identical to how it was 100 years ago, except the christian fundamentalists who advocate it today have become more media savvy. There is no assertive evidence to back up any claims put forward by these religious types, and their theories are nothing more than cleverly worded biblical literalism. I will continue to prevent you from pushing forward your christian, creationist agenda wherever I catch you doing it. Good day to you Salva! :-) Aaarrrggh 16:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi Aaarrggh. I do not think parapsychology is a psuedo-science. It is the seekers themselves who have corrupted it. I don't think it has looked in the right places, won't look in the right places and it is a haven for screwball ideas. I suspect all it will ever find is short range telepathy ( 20 feet or so) of uncontrolled shared visual hallucinations. I don't think that is what parapsychologists want, nor does anyone else. It is not what has been expected. It will have little affect on science, like the emotional contagion which probably makes it possible.User: Kazuba 15 Feb 2006

It is a pseudo-science. A scientific discipline that studies telepathy and ESP? We may aswell start setting up scientific institutions to study gods will, vampires and magic spells. -- void main 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Just to clear up a few points, to keep the article factually correct:

  • Calls cost 60p. I am glad you have changed this to correct this fact.
  • The answers are not made up on the spot by the producers. This is quite obvious on the bonus round, which you have singled out. There is a 1 in 99 chance of guessing the correct answer (less if you note down previous incorrect answers, or if you're lucky enough to catch the presenter going through the incorrect answers). Once the two number digit has been guessed correctly, then the envelope which the presenter holds is opened, which contains a card with the two digit number hand-written on it. Also note that the presenters very often say "The answers have been locked into the computer, and can not and will not be changed". To even suggest the producers change the answers in order to get more calls is nowhere near NPOV. You have no proof to suggest this is happening.
  • The show is a TV show. It is not a business, by any definition of the word. A business is something that supplies goods or services. This is a phone in quiz tv show. You do not have to phone in. Nobody has to. The fact that ITV may be making money from the show does not mean the show is a business. It is not, and never will be. It is a TV show.

-- 9cds(talk) 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: Firstly, the addition I made never actually claimed that the calls to quizmania cost £1.50 a minute - that particular sentence began with the phrase "Shows like quizmania..." which to me implied that it was a comment on shows of this genre, not necessarily quizmania itself. I did agree that it was a little misleading however, so added the 60p comment in brackets purely for clarity.
I do not see your point about the bonus round not being 'made up on the spot'. There is nothing to prevent them from using any number they wish. I could guess '25', and there would be no way anybody could independantly verify whether this was the correct number or not. I'm sure they do pay out sometimes, but they would have to do this even if the show was a scam anyway, because they need to have at least a few examples of genuine payouts should anyone come asking for evidence.
Because they show the number after it has been guessed. Do you honestly think they do camera tricks, and change the envelope part way through the show?
Your comment about the presenters saying: "The answers have been locked into the computer, and can not and will not be changed" regarding the bonus round is irrelevant as far as I can tell. We have to take their word for it.
That is regarding all rounds. We also have to take your word for that they don't lock the answers into the computer.
"To even suggest the producers change the answers in order to get more calls is nowhere near NPOV. You have no proof to suggest this is happening."
- It is neutral point of view to present totally legitimate criticisms. While I do not have conclusive 'proof', I have provided analytical evidence (consider the fact that the questions they ask have no definitive 'right or wrong' answer, for example - highly suggestive and totally legitimate criticism). I have also provided citations for my points - the BBC article which provides illumination on general criticisms of shows of that genre, and the times article which notes that Quizmania earned ITV a whopping £1.2 million in just a 2 week period, which neatly brings me onto your final point.
There is no citing of sources. We cannot post non-NPOV statements on wikipedia.
You say:
"* The show is a TV show. It is not a business, by any definition of the word. A business is something that supplies goods or services. This is a phone in quiz tv show. You do not have to phone in. Nobody has to. The fact that ITV may be making money from the show does not mean the show is a business. It is not, and never will be. It is a TV show."
Actually, it is a business, or call it a 'money spinning enterprise'. Call it whatever you want, but it is certainly not just a tv show. It is desgined to specifically make money (I refer you once again to the above times article), yet this type of program simply could not work if it presented realistic and genuine opportunities for people to win the amounts of money it appears to be promising. I have no doubt that they will genuinly pay out sometimes, but I would do this anyway if I were designing a system identical to this that was a scam. Equally, the point about people 'not having to phone in' is equally irrelevant. I do not have to purchase a BMW car - does this mean BMW is not a business?
It still isn't a business _or_ an enterprise. Go get your dictionary out.
I have put the article back how it should be. I have altered the word 'business' to 'enterprise', but the points remain valid and remain unaltered.

Aaarrrggh 09:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do NOT put the article back until we have discussed this.

As an added note, the only reason they do not show adverts during Quizmania is so that they can show more adverts during the daytime. That is also how they can afford to do it. You may remember that ITV have never shown adverts at night. -- 9cds(talk) 02:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an absurd statement. Firstly, the number of adverts they show during the day wouldn't make any difference whatsoever how many adverts they show at night-time. That's just absurd. It doesn't work like that. Equally, the statemnet that "You may remember that ITV have never shown adverts at night" is totally and utterly false. ITV have shown adverts at night-time for years. As someone who has suffered from Insomnia and watched cheesy tv during the wee hours as a student, I can vouch for this personally.
Then why do they get away with showing more adverts at night? -- 9cds(talk) 12:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaarrrggh 09:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.-Localzuk (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, understood. However, this article is now going to a vote. I hope we can sort this out that way. Aaarrrggh 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

April Gaede and Prussian Blue[edit]

Here's the photo that Phiwum keeps removing from the article: [1] - user seems to have a POV against this photo and this person is a public figure and fair game. Szygny 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Sminthopsis84. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Fertilisation without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


You accidentally posted a message on this user's userpage, I reverted it for you. I'll let you put the message on the user's talk page yourself if you still want to.

Also, I understand your frustration with the Kundalini article but you should try to keep it more civil and not use summaries like "removed bullshit". :p — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Aaarrrggh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)