User talk:AfadsBad

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


COI templates

{{Connected contributor|User}} {{COI|date=February 2014}} {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}

Just write as if someone was going to read it! Is that really too much to ask?

My blog:, posting it on Wikipedia is not outing, no matter how confused editors get about it. Outing is the deliberate posting of personally identifiable information about an editor on Wikipedia in a deliberate attempt to reveal their identity when they have not chosen to do so. Apparently it's allowed.

You can find my blog by searching Google for my Wikipedia user name. It's not a secret. It's full of posts about the bad science put on the main page by irresponsible Wikipedia editors. None of these editors can be bothered to correct the bad science, because the policy, WP:Verifiability has no standing on Wikipedia, no meaning. Go ahead and OUT other editors, go ahead and make up information, go ahead and plagiarize.

Blog, blog, blog, who cares? What editors on en.Wikipedia should care about is that other editors are making up information and adding it to articles and no one minds that this is being done.

The usual reasons--no common sense, no interest in making Wikipedia a place where editors are really valued, too much bad bad bad science, like a plant family article sitting on Wikipedia for years with a misspelled name, being revert warred over a comment that C4 photosynthesis includes stomata opening at night, threats by admins who SCREAM and then another threatens to block you for reverting when you are not in a revert war, false accusations. Shit, how could I have stayed this long, especially when I started with the User:Dennis Brown welcome of getting blocked for being a sock of a user who had no article contributions like mine whatsover?

Take your bad science and shove it!

User:AfadsBad/Archive2 User:AfadsBad/Archive1

User talk:AfadsBad/Archive2


I'm very sorry to see how you've changed this talk page since I looked at your last reply. I really hope that my comments weren't part of the reason you decided to leave — I was confused and asking for your help, and I wasn't saying that you were causing any problems; I'm sorry if I made it sound as if I was. Please read my reply anyway!

Checking the copyvio template, I see that you followed its instructions. It looks like work will need to be done on the instructions: this template is not supposed to be used that way, and the Duplicate Detector really needs to have the questionable text on the page (even if it's not visible) in order to work properly, so I'll see if I can improve the template instructions. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


Sorry to see that you were frustrated with Wikipedia and decided to retire, AfadsBad. Being a collaborative process means that sometimes you get your way, often you don't. I find it helpful to choose the battles I think are important to put my effort behind and don't sweat it if I'm reverted or if some article I support gets deleted. No one "wins" every debate here.
Even though, above all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, every time you have thousands of people working on a project, it develops a social culture of its own. It helps if you try to navigate through the culture and not try to fight it because, short of a scandal, organizational evolution is a slow process. It's easier though if you find allies along the way to support you.
But you don't need a lecture. Just know that if you choose to come back, you will be welcomed by many people who met you while you were here. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. The anti-science personalities are difficult to stomach. Should you decide to edit again, (if I'm still editing) you'll have a supporter in me. Take care, Hamamelis (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'd love to say that Wikipedia will be the worse for your departure, but I can't. You're replaceable just like I am, just like all of us are. Sorry, I'm not the type to hold your hand and say it'll be o.k. I don't think it needs to be sugarcoated, or that we have to be sensitive to your feelings. You were rather pompous, bloviating, and contumacious. I found your presumptuousness appalling. I am surprised by how many times you couldn't play well with others. Have fun in real life. Don't worry, Wikipedia will be just fine.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, he has his bad science blog to dedicate his life to. Sure beats fixing problems yourself! I'm sure there's thousands of Chadian ecologists and meteorologists out there who can be a radical scientist and fill the void... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Pedra de Gavea[edit]

Hey there! I'm the editor who nominated Pedra da Gávea for GA. I read your blog post, and found it very insightful. I just want you to know that I want to improve Wikipedia, not make it worse. If you are at all willing, I'd love to work on making the article better. The article needed someone with geology know-how to "fix" it, and I'm sorry that my writing wasn't very good; I focused most of my attention on the inscription.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your splendid blog[edit]

Thank you for listing my achievements in the last round of the WikiCup with such prominence on your blog (blog post Wed 13th November). It was indeed an impressive list of FAs and GAs, not forgetting the 79 DYKs. The review processes involved in getting some of the articles to GA and FA standard were arduous. Take Desert for example. You were there at the time, made some criticisms and suggestions which were addressed and were satisfied at the time that the article met the GA criteria. So why the change of heart?

By the way, some of the points you make on your blog are incorrect. Your statement for example that Atlantic Puffin had been on the main page is untrue. And you can't even spell my name correctly, or perhaps you are referring to some other editor I know nothing about! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban[edit]

I see both Henry and you are still having problems. I'm not entirely sure what's going on this time, but perhaps requesting a WP:IBAN might help. If Henry is the reason you're no longer enjoying editing Wikipedia, it might help eliminate the problem. Happy holidays.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no intention of interacting with him; however, he should not be sleuthing me off-Wikipedia, then publishing his finds on-Wikipedia.
I don't edit Wikipedia because it's impossible to correct bad science in the face of editors seeking the WikiCup. Almost every bad science post I've written on my blog, the editor in question has e-mailed me or commented on the post, then, in spite of not being able to defend their made-up science, they haven't bothered to correct it. You think writing, "Bob is day," is vandalism? That doesn't get wiki mirrored onto the internet to never be corrected. Wikipedia editors don't respect Verifiability, especially when it interferes with winning the WikiCup or getting an article to Good Article status. I can't edit, because there's never time to edit, because I have to Randy from Boise explain 5th grade science to editors who just badly and inaccurately plagiarized science way above their level. There just doesn't seem to be any consensus for removing made-up science from Wikipedia, and I can't fight that inertia. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Your complaints about your outing ring a little hollow when you're off complaining about your ill-treatment to Wikipediocracy, the biggest advocates of outing to be found. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Your complaints about my complaints about outing ring more than a little hollow when you read Wikipediocracy. --AfadsBad (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
One should know one's enemy. I'm one of those who has been outed by WP editors and had this ignored by Arbs, because those editors were only using Wikipediocracy to do so. I would not post to Wikipediocracy and I certainly wouldn't post to "the intellectual 4chan", asking for their help, as you did. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Lol. Whether you mean ANI or ArbCom by that, touché. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

Kahuzi-Biéga_National_Park reference to your blog[edit]

About this edit: I don't think your blog qualifies as a reference, unless you're claiming to be knowledgeable about the park itself. It looks like you just want attribution for your choice of words, but the way we do that in Wikipedia is through the article history. If every sentence in every article had a reference for everyone who wrote it, we'd have a nightmare. So I'm going to remove the reference to your blog, but keep the phrasing, since you have now contributed them. --GRuban (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I would prefer you remove all. Unfortunately once someone plagiarized from an anti-Wikipedia blog, that contaminated the article with that reference. Would you consider just rewriting my paragraph? Then there is no need to reference my blog post. Again, unfortunately, but that is from my blog, and if it stays on Wikipedia, my terms of CC are that it be attributed to me within the article, and I made those terms clear to Wikipedia, and these terms were accepted. I am told that readers don't look at article histories, they are only for editors, I have even been accused of something, not quite sure what, for looking at histories. As Wikipedia acknowledges these are insufficient, the choices are to ridiculously leave my anti-Wikipedia blog in as the source for that paragraph, which it is, or remove the paragraph. I have had this discussion with the copyright folks, and this is their solution. Please, seriously consider just rewriting the paragraph; with a basic knowledge of science, this will only take you ten minutes. Plagiarism is nasty, irresponsible, and an undoable accusation. Can't Wikipedia just this time clean up their garbage?
And, every time Wikipedia plagiarizes another writer by copying their writing without attributiom, this is exactly what is required: add an attribution or remove it from Wikipedia. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, technically, there is this notice right above the "Save page" button. "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." That didn't count for the last time, since the contributor didn't have the rights, but you did. However, it's a fine point, and I will try to rewrite. In fact, I have tried a few times, but each time it comes out sounding like yours. Must scrub memory! :-) --GRuban (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't care if it sounds like mine, I care if it is mine and sourced to an anti-Wikipedia blog in article space, the ultimate absurdity. Thanks, --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC))
If you were to rewrite it in a sandbox or on the article talk page, I would be glad to help edit it there. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
All right, rewrote. 4 months to write 4 sentences is fair, right? :-) OK, I'm not great, but I'm the one who did it. I think the only thing that is left as identifiably yours is the word "dominates", which I hope I may be forgiven for. I also noticed that the way you had it wasn't really correct in a few ways. It looks like only the eastern part is the interesting part with transition zones and all, not the whole thing; it also looks like you were implying that the bamboo grew above the heather-dominated montane transition zone, which I don't see in the sources (while it's possible for bamboo to grow that high, the sources don't say that it does here, they seem to imply that the heathers were the top); and that the park's swamps and bogs were rare in themselves, where what the source seemed to say was that the fact that there were swamps and bogs at all elevations was rare. --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I will check it out. I think I just wrote a quick example without checking sources, and, so, I was surprised to see it picked up here. Effort counts, and you said you would deal with it. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC))
Found numbers for bamboo, but they now make the sentence unwieldy... so it goes. --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
List the types in one sentence, the next sentence then says, "Bamboo Forests are found between these meters, and whatever dominates above 2600 meters." Etc. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC))
Done, thanks! --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oikopleura dioica[edit]

According to this source, the tunicate Oikopleura dioica "has the smallest genome known to date in animals - only 72 Mb". You apparently know better. (And by the way, I am prepared to admit that the DYK hook for Tunicate was badly worded and that the "may" should not have been included.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The last update was 2008, check copyright. See Wikipedia article on genome size, some nematode pest of coffee plants wins there and elsewhere on web. Please edit the hook, then, so it does not sit at top of talk page with misinformation. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The hook is a historical record and I don't like to alter it, however I have removed it from view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Request your opinion[edit]

I'd like to get Dent corn up to FA status eventually--since it is arguably the most important cereal grain grown in the developed world. It's a slow project (not one of my high priority projects), but one that I plan to move up the ladder over the next few months. Would you be willing to bury the hatchet and check my work thus far and possibly provide a few suggestions for going forward?--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The taxonomy section contradicts the article, a variety and a species are not the same thing, the taxonomy is of the species. Use page numbers. ELS is a primary source, the USDA should have plenty on the varieties, refer to ELS from another source, but don't use for information. Without doing any research, I thought it was the non-feed corn variety, the yellow, and the white dent is what is made into masa. The introduction loses its agricultural importance, but should emphasize it. Start out, dent corn is a variety that is distinguished by its kernel shape, was developed for the reason by someone, and is available in yellow and white, differing by starch content or starch type, and is now grown for certain purposes, the yellow for this and the white for that. It comprises what percentage of maize production worldwide/USA. The taxonomy section should be the specifics about its development, including, countries of origin, centers for biodiversity. The part about the grasses photosynesis is way out there in its current location. Link both flint corn and the type of floury corn bred for the result, and move out of lead into the "taxonomy" section. I see yellow and white are at bottom, needs better developed in its own section. Sould have large section on production, it is an ag product.

Needs GMO information, genomics information, specific agricultural research stations (Albany, CA?) for genomics and crop production, locations where it grows (soils, ranfall amount and timing), fertilization, seed production, harvest, how, when, loss of crops, insect, fungal, etc., pests and research. USA/global perspectives. Section on starch, nutrition. Markets. Its presence in mixtures. History of production, development of markets.

--AfadsBad (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for some great ideas and guidance, I'll start looking into them. If you see anything along the way as I work on it that needs correction, I won't mind if you jump in. I really meant it a few weeks ago when I said that if we can figure a way to work with each other (and I'm always willing to learn) it could be a great collaboration. It might take me a little time to get it done as I'm currently focused on drafting a rewrite of When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd that should be somewhat finished in the next week or two. But with your suggestions, it gives me a good idea going forward. Like you, I like to see accuracy. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thinking about nominating my article on Geology Hall at Rutgers for FAC, and wanted to know if you'd take a look at it before I do so.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph disorganized. Pick either timeline or importance or something. Probably timeline. 1. What it is, okay; 2. Made a land grant college in what year; 3. this led to expansion of sci and ag; 4. funds were raised for this; 5. NRHP here, I guess. I might put this after the first sentence. Paragraph 2, okay, but what administrative offices, what department.

" It features exhibits on geology, paleontology, and anthropology, with an emphasis on the natural history of New Jersey, that include fluorescent zinc minerals from Franklin and Ogdensburg, a dinosaur trackway discovered in Towaco, a mastodon from Salem County, and a Ptolemaic era Egyptian mummy."

Its exhibits emphasize the natural history of New Jersey and include geo, paleo, anth including ... I would probably not include the two specific locations, I would put the mastodon first, then the trackways, unless there is a reason otherwise.


First sentence is a run on and mangled beyond sense. Try two sentences: land grant, act; then next sentence what each of these land grant colleges were for. Good to include the information, though. Can you write more directly? The state's selection was, ... a lot of these. I don't think they read well for a general encyclopedia. "The state selected Rutgers due to the efforts of Cook." I don't understand why the funds were appropriated and from what?

"In 1864, Rutgers College was named New Jersey's sole land grant college which provided federal funding pursuant to the Morrill Act of 1862 for the development of engineering, scientific, agricultural, and military education at one school in each state.[1]:pp.87–88[2] The state's selection of Rutgers (instead of the College of New Jersey, now Princeton University) was largely influenced by the efforts of George Hammell Cook (1818–1889), a professor of chemistry and natural sciences who became the college's vice president and appointed state geologist in 1864.[1]:pp.87–88[3][4]:p.27 With the college's land-grant status and funding appropriated for scientific studies, Cook's role would grow to include research and teaching in the areas of geology and agriculture.[1]:pp.87ff.[4]:p.27"

In 1864 the State of New Jersey named Rutgers College as their sole land grant college. Pursuant to the Morrill Act of 1862, this designation gave the state federal lands to sell to raise money to develop practical education in agriculture, science, military science and engineering. George Hammell Cook (1818-1889), a professor of chemistry and natural sciences, influenced the state to select Rutgers over College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). with the land grant status and new funding for scientific studies, Cook expanded his research and teaching into geology and agriculture. Cook later became the college's vice president and was appointed state geologist in 1864.

Some suggestions, quick, not exact. But I think it is stilted, does not flow well overall. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

History continued[edit]

More run on and disorganization, repetition. My suggested rewrite is a quick one, you can probably come up with better.

Six years later, during Rutgers' centennial anniversary of its second charter (1770), the college's board of trustees decided to build Geological Hall to house the new scientific programs. College president William H. Campbell (1808–1890) solicited donations from alumni and other supporters in an extensive fundraising effort for the purpose. The trustees commissioned a design for a Geological Hall from Henry Janeway Hardenbergh (1847–1918), a young architect from New Brunswick. Hardenbergh's great-great-grandfather, the Rev. Jacob Rutsen Hardenbergh (1736–1790), was Rutgers' first president and one of its founders, and his grandfather, Rev. Jacob Janeway served as vice president of the college. Geology Hall was the second of three projects that Hardenberg designed for the college, following an addition to a building (now Alexander Johnston Hall) that housed the college's grammar school (now Rutgers Preparatory School) the year before. The third project, Kirkpatrick Chapel (1873), was designed to complement the simple Gothic Revival style of Geology Hall and was erected on the north side of Old Queens.[5]

An exhibit featuring (of) Native American stone tools

Hardenbergh's Gothic Revival design mixed both Gothic and classical elements that preceded the mixed forms of the later Victorian Gothic Revival period.[7] The original plans were for a red brick building.[7] However, to save moneys, the design was revised to use New Jersey brownstone to complement the exterior of the college's oldest building, Old Queens (built 1809–1823).[5][8]

"Hardenbergh's design mixed both Gothic and classical elements that preceded the mixed forms of the the later Victorian Gothic Revival period.[7]"

I rewrote this because it is too close to the source, but I also question its usefulness here. What the registry blurb is trying to say is that the architecture departed from the increasingly popular Gothic Revival with its mixture of Gothic and classical forms, and possibly that it was a forerunner of the Victorian Gothic Revival, a sloppily mixed and grotesque architectural form that took hold of some buildings before Princeton (?) started the Collegiate Gothic architecture that held sway for so long from the late 19th century. I would find a better source for this statement, because it may be important architecturally, the style choice for this building that it was Gothic Revival but different.

Geology Hall was completed in 1872 at a cost of US$63,201.54 (2013: US$1,215,365),[3][a] The first floor contained lecture and laboratory rooms for physics, geology and military science, and housed the college's armory.[1]:p.101 The hall's second floor was designed as a museum to house the college's natural history artefacts and geological specimens.[1]:p.101 There were initially classrooms for agriculture, until Rutgers built New Jersey Hall (1889) to house the Agricultural Experiment Station. Geology Hall also contained lecture space for chemistry and engineering for several years, until new Chemistry and Engineering buidlings (1909 and 1910 respectively) were built across Hamilton Street on land that became the college's Voorhees Mall.[1]:pp.148,157

This last sentence is hard to understand. "were built across Hamilton Street on land that became the college's Voorhees Mall" If the land became Voorhees Mall, are the buildings on the mall, were the buildings replaced by the mall?

Geology Hall housed the offices of the Rutgers geology department, now called the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, from 1872 until 1979, when it moved to the university's Busch Campus in Piscataway. This was the last of the university's science department to move across the Raritan River to the Busch campus.[11] Today, Geology Hall houses offices of the university's administration and the Rutgers Geology Museum. In 1973, Geology Hall was included with six other buildings on Rutgers' Queen's Campus on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places the National Register of Historic Places.[7][12]

Standards, amateurs and Randies[edit]

AfadsBad, first let me say how much I appreciate the very high standards you expect from Wikipedia articles, especially stuff that lands on the main page. It is indeed embarrassing for Wikipedia when poorly-sourced items get featured there, or the main page drives traffic to poorly-written content.

That said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written mostly by amateurs. And I mean "amateurs" in its base etymological sense: People who love to investigate and write about the topics that interest them. In this sense, and I hope this doesn't come across as overly sentimental, Wikipedia is driven off of love and not specialized expertise. As a result we get mistakes on the main page sometimes. I stepped through the DYK nomination that upset you and saw several spots where the mistake could have been caught but wasn't. I actually have never dealt with the DYK process, but like everything else I'm sure it could be improved. Again, this is a labor of love driven by unpaid amateurs, and given that I think overall Wikipedia turns out a surprisingly respectable result, but it will never be perfect.

I think it's particularly wrong to characterize some of the editors you have been as "Randies". The defining feature of a Randy is that a Randy will tendentiously pursue some wrong-headed idea until it gets into an article out of exhaustion. I think the editors you've been talking about are the opposite--they take on board valid criticism and become aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and seek out and accept help when they need it. However, these editors, like everyone else, makes mistakes, and I'd bet their mistake rate per unit of content produced has gone down over time. When a mistake happens, the least productive response is to rip someone's head off and run it up a pike, that will only result in resentment and defensiveness. Zad68 2:37 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Unlike many other frustrated editors, I do think that educated and informed amateur editors can write on topics in areas far outside of their expertise. But, you should have some background in the topic, say a high school biology course that touched upon botany, so that you don't write a plant description that gives the appearance that Wikipedia plant editors don't know what a petiole is. When the editor fights back instead of correcting an error that compromises the integrity of Wikipedia, that is Randy. I will never be spending my days writing en.Wikipedia articles. I will always be an outsider, and the insider editor, no matter how badly the article is written, will always be favored in discussions over accurate and readable content. This is why User:Cwmhiraeth continues to make up taxonomic and other scientific information in her articles and continues to be rewarded for it by the community--there is no minimum standard of knowledge, that an editor writing a plant article's description should know, or be able to find out, what a petiole is, or that an editor writing about photosynthesis should know that the reason CAM and C4 phoosynthesis have different names is that they are different processes, and just because she knows nothing about either, it's not okay to make up the missing knowledge.
There are as many reasons why it is my fault for failing to communicate in the proper manner as there are editors on en.Wikipedia. But no one putting content over social networking on en.Wikipedia will ever communicate correctly. I want an accurate article that is readable. I don't care if I win the WikiCup for making up thousands of false taxonomies for the main page. Cwmhiraeth has not learned, and I am not the first, second, or third person to tell her about her mistakes, yet the community continues to reward her rather than her learning anything. It might be possible to get HalfGig on the right path, but not my job. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not what you want to accomplish, it's how you go about it--towit, there are at least 6 insults in your last post. If you really care about an article, improve it instead of only complaining about it. I don't have to put up with people like you in real life and I don't have to here. Wiki's all yours, have fun being a drama queen. HalfGig talk 22:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of Drama Queens: Delete me
"Please delete my account" (HalfGig)
This is exactly what a Randy does when having his lack of knowledge challenged. No, you can't put a valid template on an article written by a Randy, because, even if what they wrote is inaccurate, nothing matters but Randy getting praise for an article. Content is anything Randy posted, accurate is any way Randy wants it, and there is no way to correct a Randy article, because doing so is an act of aggression.
someone disagrees? The world ends.
But in the real world, scientists disagree all the time. And Randy can't deal with that.
But, now Randy posted the ultimate attention-getting cry for a gathering of Randies for protection from having someone accurately template his article. Go forth, Randies, and multiply.
"You are so full of yourself. You are the epitome of why people leave wiki. All you want to do is bitch and whine and complain rather than build content. You're too lazy to do that." (HalfGig)
Content is accurate. If you know it's not, and you fight to keep it, you're just a vandal.
Maybe you can take time out to count your own insults, and figure out if you really care. And, go away from my talk page. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC))
  • WP:RANDY is fucking awesome. How did this endure so long without me noticing it? --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Lol. You've never seen it? It's the truth. And Half is out their gathering his buddies with pitchforks by drama-festing his sorrow to attract attention. The Randies are coming, the Randies are coming. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC))
I had never seen it until happening upon this recent conversation (I admit: I watch your talk page)..."heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved" was a perfect analogy. I was laughing my ass off seeing that Wired nailed it on the head 8 years ago.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I called you one over the GA with the imaginary strata. It's an important observation about en.Wikipedia though. See, according to everyone below, the burden is on me to explain why a petiole should be discussed with the leaf rather than being omitted in the leaf description and added as an afterthought introduction to the paragraph about the flower. I don't know how to explain it. I was require to prove to Cwmhiraeth that C4 photosynthesis is not CAM photosynthesis. I don't know how to do this, as I'm not a high school teacher. It's like having to explain that a wheel is not part of the engine block of a car and a Jaguar is not a 1952 Volkswagon Beetle. The disconnection is too huge. Yet the Randies demand that the editors with basic knowledge of the topic have to teach the undereducated. How many years do I have, if the editor can't just read a dictionary definition, or even the en.Wikipedia articles and figure it out themselves? If you have no idea what a word means, don't use it. But Randies gather up their buddies, call you names, revert you, throw temper tantrums, anything but back down on pretending to know and making up what they don't know. Amatuers can write articles on organisms for a general encyclopedia. Amateurs should not be filling in the blanks of their knowledge with made up information and edit warring to keep it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC))
  • I remember you called me one, but I didn't know about the essay. The essay is classic. Despite the fuck-up (which mostly was due to sweeping through several GAs at once and that one looked easy to do a drive-by review so I jumped on it--bad mentality), I did learn. Nevertheless, I do respect your desire for clear, accurate writing and good sourcing, and to avoid the battles when there is a wrong to be corrected...I just didn't like the histrionics. The method is right, the approach was less than desirable. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I gave up after being forced to explain why made-up information not even in the cited source had to be removed from en.Wikipedia. It tried my patience and found it wanting. I just can't figure out how or why to waste my time, and really, claims to the contrary, most articles in DYK/GA/FA suffer ownership issues, and the editors will throw temper tantrums whether you edit or template. But twisted writings in DYK appear to be due to lack of underlyng knowledge. If you don't know what you are writing the answer should not be a tortured copy and paste. Histrionics don't help, but nothing else does, either. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC))
Write an witty, incisive essay...not an attack piece (because I know you like to bash on Cwmhiraeth but she is an incredibly nice person and with good intentions, and attacking is too easy). For example: I hated how STRONGNAT was used to force MDY dates for American articles--especially since a lot of Americans have taken on the European styling, and several style guides actually prefer it. I abhor MDY--just like I detest people who don't cross 7s or tail their 1s. I hate getting an article I've worked hard on close to where I want to see it only for by someone who just does a drive-by script edit from DMY to MDY dates and then has the gall to lecture me on "MDY for American topics" before doing another 100 mindless script edits. So, I wrote an essay about it. Whenever I wield it (only a few times now) it's like a thought-terminating cliché. A quick witty essay, much like WP:RANDY, would accomplish your mission. Tagging an article only gets so far--creating a mocking barnstar for inaccuracy would get the point across (my "barnstar of decapitation" to ArbCom for Kafziel matter comparing them to the High Court that took out Charles I wasn't taken too kindly). I'd think if I fucked up an article and got a template saying "hey, thanks for shitting the bed on article X..." would probably work wonders.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC))
Yes, the Cwmhiraeth issue is a quandary. She does appear to be one of the nicest people on this place, in a cesspool, and her intentions are good, but she also seems to have been told a number of times to stay away from certain areas of biology; even admitting in a couple of discussions that she did not understand taxonomy. It seems that numerous administrators, @Zad68 being the latest, are aware or being made aware that she is essentially deeply vandalizing en.Wikipedia by making up and fudging what she doesn't know or understand, to the tune of hundreds of mainpage biology articles and millions of disreputable hits a year, but these administrators and editors are either unwilling or unable, due to their own lack of basic knowledge in biology, to stop her. If en.Wikipedia prioritized accuracy over social networking, this would not be happening. Someone could be documenting this to send to one of the papers that have written in the past about problem editors at en.Wikipedia, that admins and editors don't care when told about a major content vandal. She should stop doing this, but I wonder if the bigger problem is her being rewarded by the Randies and encouraged to continue.
I don't care if you write a date wrong. I painstakingly added the correct modern source for a botanical description to hundreds of articles, and some nut is changing the dash in all of them, single edit, bogging down my watchlist. But, in the end, en.Wikipedia will be easier to use with a common format, dates and dashes included. What might be better is a format-bot to call after you write an article to take care of all of this at once, the handy bracket-breaking bot, the disambig bot, the dashes and dates.
I think that too many editors consider me a subject matter expert, and no template by me would meet with anything but attack-the-messenger. Cwmhiraeth's articles are a serious issue, but no one wants to hear it, when they can social network with her instead. And, no, I am not going to be her teacher. I came here to add sources and correct errors of fact in botany articles in the lax hours. Teaching requires pay. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC))
Have you ever heard the phrase "you get more flies with honey than vinegar"? If it irks you to see mistaken taxonomy in her articles or other user's articles, fix it and be kind about it. I hate to use the word gnome since in German myth they were violent little furbies...but WikiGnome behaviour is something that can be done admirably. Would it be easier for you to raise your fist to the heavens and complain with no solution, or easier for you to go to an article, correct it, provide the source, and leave a talk page message saying "Hey, I've seen your work at (article name) and saw a few problems with the taxonomy that I saw fit to correct. I brought it into conformity with (name of source) which is the authority on the subject. If you have any questions, ask away. Just a few suggestions for improvement...etc." I know I'd appreciate that. Most users would. Show too much attitude to someone at their doorstep, there's no excuse wondering why they hit back with a bat or an unfriendly "fuck off". Show up like a Mormon missionary with cookies, and they might let you in to chat. I'm an asshole, and like most smart people I hate being questioned or challenged. And I know I retreat into defensiveness and downright hostility when someone brings attitude with their challenge. Wikipedia would work and be improved faster if people were more open to civil discussions. Sure there's a bunch of dumb pre-teens fluffing articles and some shit needs to be nipped in the bud (try new page patrolling if you think errors in taxonomy is a problem, wait to you see the shit that shows up as new articles from editors who think it ought to belong just because and expect "just because" despite the valid and logical rationale you wrote for AfD). But I know if there's a chance to learn and I'm treated a little respectfully, I tend to listen. Cwmhiraeth is a good editor, irregardless if she makes a mistake from time to time, attacking her won't fix articles. Wikipedia is a kindergarten sandbox...sometimes you have to ask nicely for someone to move for a moment so you can clean the cat shit out of the sandcastle. Just food for thought.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
But it's not a "mistake now and then," it's multiple mistakes in every article. I work full time. She uses archaic sources, and requires Randy explanations or reverts and fights. The article she sourced her "C4 is just like CAM" to, did not say this, as the information she put in the Wikipedia article was completely made up. I can't prove it's not there, just by saying it's false, which I tried, because she demands the Randy proof. For one article, with three pieces of nonsense, I am required to find it in a library with her 40 year old source, read articles on CAM for mentions of C4, rewrite taxonomies she never really wrote in the first place, and spend hours consulting real sources to write what she made up. She does not appear to work, takes an hour to write made up information that would take an expert half a day to get correctly, and churns out hundreds of articles a year. If it takes me 5 days to correct one of her articles, and she meantime writes 4 more just as bad or worse, it does not matter how nice I am. Her science is not redeamable. And someone with understanding who is unwilling to make up infomation could never keep up with her. This is the Randy advantage--she has no knowledge that would clue her in to her level of ignorance, and a competent editor writing accurate articles would require 5X as much time to write an accurate article. I don't have it. And she has contributed hundreds of such articles, everyone of which needs extensively rewritten to be accurate. I had no way to explain to you that you can't intrude a formation that does not exist; it was pure nonsense. Every article Cwmhiraeth has written has nonsense at this level. Her featured articles, Sea and Desert, are among the worst. One of her supporters asked her on her talk page not to write any more FAs because of this I gave up on Desert, leaving atrocities in it after the "all cacti are leafless" and "C4 is exactly like CAM" battles, and Sea was harshly criticized on its talk page after appearing on the main page. She knows her articles are full of nonsense and keeps writing them, they continue to appear on the main page, and the solution is that I should teach her and correct her? No. The solution is for the community to wake up, stop her, template or delete her articles and correct all of them.
A mistake every now and then can be corrected, thousands of hits week after week for known nonsense is not a mistake every now and then. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC))
AfadsBad I'm struggling to figure out how your response is in any way helpful... I'm sad to see it. Zad68 03:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It will get more helpful as more polite en.Wikipedia editors come by, call me stupid, go for drama broke, and swear they are the example of civility. A little ridiculous, in light of the temper tantrums and name calling, to pay attention to me.
Show me one admin who cares that User:Cwmhiraeth makes up information to put in DYKs, then come back and point fingers at me, after you scrape two years of her damage from cyberspace. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC))
Well said Zad68! AfadsBad, please learn to write so that you can (a) fix mistakes rather than venting rage and (b) explain yourself without invective. If you made the effort to learn to write, you would understand that sentences and paragraphs don't always come out perfect the first time around, and that it can be particularly difficult to fix one's own text. The mistake here is not HalfGig's, it is the whole concept of putting "our latest content" on the front page for it and its creators to be shredded by people like yourself. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to see you driven out by a barbarian (again) Dear HalfGig, I'm so sorry to see here that the ad hominem fallout from submitting articles for DYK has caused you to give up in disgust. Your experience convinces me, further, that these various efforts to promote wikipedia (including the efforts to push articles to GA and FA status) are very damaging to the community. What a horrible situation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC) It appears that name calling is the norm on en.Wikipedia. Just one more of those rules that don't apply to anyone, unless you're an insider needing a hammer. "Verifiability" being my all-time favorite arbitrary en.Wikipedia rule. Make it up to win the WikiCup, but newcomers actually have to use information from their sources, not just falsify what they can't understand, then edit war to get it kept. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)) Oh, my, "learn to write," because obviously it's that I can't write that leads me to template rather than correct, you brilliant, insightful, civil Wkipedian. Oh, my, so helpful, you polite little en.Wiki editor, adding fuel to the situatuion. Maybe I will listen to you if the flames die down, but, still, at least you're moving on from attacking botanical experts. Take your troll butt off my talkpage, Smith. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

Cwmhiraeth's articles[edit]

In the discussion with ColonelHenry in the previous post you make many references to my failures. For example you said "But it's not a "mistake now and then," it's multiple mistakes in every article" and "she has contributed hundreds of such articles, everyone of which needs [to be] extensively rewritten to be accurate."and "Every article Cwmhiraeth has written has nonsense at this level."

Sweeping statements indeed, so lets be more specific and take as an example my most recent article on Americamysis bahia, an opossum shrimp that is used in research. This is a newly created article and provides readers with information not previously available on Wikipedia. The article is of course incomplete, as befits a start class article, but could you point out the "multiple mistakes" and where it "needs to be extensively rewritten to be accurate". Choose another recent article if you prefer, they must all be as bad as this one! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Before I wrote that I went to your talk page and clicked on your latest DYK. I have yet to get past the taxobox. Please, before you wikilink to anything click on it. Okenia zoobotryon. When you fix its taxonomy via the links in the taxobox, I'll read the opening paragraph of it or your latest. And did you ever fix that Halloween nightmare Natterer's bat or at least stop writing about bats or at least learn that not all bats use echolocation? Your taxonomix irresponsible nightmare of an article is the first search result returned by google since you wrote it--replacing excellent, knowledgable sources that don't contain your made up information that compromises the integrity of en.Wikipedia. You read my blog post and left this disaster on Wikipedia as far as I can tell, to continue writing more articles with similar made up information that you have no intention of ever fixing. Isn't there a speedy deletion category for nonsense you could have at least used on your bat articles? AfadsBad (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I stopped reading your blog long ago. Natterer's bat probably postdates that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the taxobox of Okenia zoobotryon. It seems to be in agreement with the article Goniodorididae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Click on the WikiLinks. Big hint, write out by hand, Linnean, then click each taxon. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC))
Yeah, I did click on the taxon wikilinks, so what? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
And, read the classifications. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC))
Perhaps you should explain exactly what you mean. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That's the point, like your bat links, it's incomprehensible. No one can explain how the genus Okenia is in the family Goniodorididae of the superfamily Onchidoridoidea of the clade Doridacea, a taxonomic "grouping" in the clade Euctenidiacea, which is a taxonomic family in its intro, but a superfamily in its taxobox and, in the body of the text, damn it, a clade comprised of two clades, the Gnathodoridacea and Doridacea that are groupings of superfamilies, and all you really need to see are the endings before you start hurling at the obvious horror of it all, all of which clicking should have stopped you before you put the article together and on the main page. Plainly, the taxobox info and links should have stopped you before you proceeded with this article, leading you to fix all this misinformation and confusion rather than inviting thousands of readers to see how badly en.Wikipedia deals with taxonomies. I know thhere are current issues with gastropod classification, but it's exciting and interesting, and it can and ahould be explained, rather than mixed up and presented as crazy mixes of this and that that wind up without meaning or information. (AfadsBad (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC))
Ah, I see. You're blaming me for having the temerity to write a new article using the taxonomy used throughout class Gastropoda, the taxonomy presumably decided on by Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. I am blaming you, if we must, for not having enough knowledge of taxonomy that you could have gotten from an intro college biology course, to see, when merely clicking on each taxon and glancing at its taxobox, that the existing gastropod taxonomy for your organism is a twisted pile of crap that should have been completely rewritten, or deleted if you couldn't, before you wrote an article that feautured the turd on en.Wikipedia's main page. Got it? --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC))

And, when we get past this crap, I will be glad to look at the rest of this or some other article. But let's find the organism first.

By the way, now that you know not all bats echolocate, are you going to correct that main page taxonomic turd? --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC))

Well, you shouldn't have, but consider yourself alerted to a giant poop, then please fix all your bat article taxonomies. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC))

By the way, this was a bad reversion. You fail to put this information in context, it's badly written, and this is not what tunicate classification is mostly about, as you make it appear. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC))

  • I do not see what the issue is with Okenia's taxonomy. The higher level organization is supported by the taxonomy of [1] provided in the Euthyneura article, and the others seem pretty straightforwardly documented in their articles. The proliferation of unranked clades at middle levels seems inevitable as DNA evidence increases the resolution of the tree. No, I'm not at expert at sea slug taxonomy (who is?) but I can't expect someone to have done better. Note that even if the taxonomy really is wrong, Wikipedia's entries only need by policy to be sourced, not to be "right". Updating them to incorporate any more recent results is a good thing, but not actually mandatory when writing a new article and setting up a taxobox. I also did not find your criticisms to be sustainable in that DYK I just pinged you at. If there is a point you want to make you've made it badly - to me it appears you are unduly focused on trying to find fault with one editor, which is not a healthy Wikipedia dynamic. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

COI templates[edit]

I wake to see that you've added COI templates to a couple of articles to which I'd just made administrative edits (articles in which I'd not previously had any interest). I wouldn't argue against these additions. But while the COI template doesn't say that it is explained in the talk page, it does say that this is where the matter is discussed; I've always thought it better to add an explanation there when I add a COI template myself. And therefore my additions of Talk:John_Paul_Morrison#COI and Talk:Barry_Leiba#COI.

As for IBM Distinguished Engineer, here "COI" is more blatant, but I can't manage to take seriously the corporatese in which this thing is written. Perhaps this article is ripe for deletion.

Semi-relevantly: On occasion I've taken quick looks at "Wikipedia watch" type blogs, but almost all have been terribly dreary, wittering on at such a great length about alleged (and perhaps actual) injustices that my eyes glazed over. Your blog is a refreshing contrast, concentrating on content as it does. I'm painfully aware of having forgotten almost all of the very little hard science I ever knew, and your blog is a salutary reminder that I should think thrice before tinkering. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, helpful style wise. I found more autobiographies, but I will skip the ones written by students or others and use your example for the talk pages. I would argue against dreary, but it's true. I was hoping my blog would be an impetus to change at DYK, but the main page seems to be getting worse. Lewis Leakey? Unbelievable. Thanks for the help.
IBM DE should be nominated for deletion; it has no independent sources asserting notability. --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC))

DYK? On occasion I've come up with something I thought worthier of inclusion than some of the DYKs I've noticed. I usually pay them no attention.

Today: we're told tiger penis soup can command US$300 a bowl, and its key ingredient has been counterfeited. Well, yes: plenty of dickheads are seemingly obsessed with exotic dicks; that they pay over $300 a bowl for something so labeled is hardly surprising. And counterfeiting here seems the obvious way to do business (and indeed benign).

But on the one or two occasions when I attempted to read the procedure for submitting a DYK candidate, I never got more than halfway.

Yes. I'll nominate the IBM non-article myself, but first have to attend to WP-irrelevant concerns. So perhaps nine hours or so from now. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been here almost 4 years, another half day won't hurt it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC))

IBM autobiographies on Wikipedia[edit]

I just got back from vacation and found some correspondence about COI referencing my article on Flow-Based Programming. At a general level I know what COI means, but I am afraid I don't know where to look for the notation - is it in the article or in the talk page? Also, does it mean someone else should have written the article? Sorry to be obtuse, but I am not clear how it is relevant to my work. Now that Flow-Based Programming is taking off worldwide (today's Google search got 32,600 hits), I am sure I can find any number of people to rewrite the article, if that is deemed necessary... Could you clarify what is going on here, and what you would like me to do? PS I recently upgraded some diagrams to make them prettier - is that the problem? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally if you want to advertise your work, you should not use Wikipedia, a general encyclopedia. One of the biggest problems with writing about yourself on Wikipedia, is that you tend to wind up with bad articles. Maybe getting someone else to write it might have worked, but who? A publicist? A friend? The article is very obviously a biography you wrote for your book jacket or blog. If a publicist writes it, it will sound the same. As with a friend.
The article would be much better if it focused on notable information from reliable sources, written up by a neutral editor. As you clearly don't intend to allow that, I think you are missing what COI means.
"Morrison is the son of the writer, translator and editor, John Rodker and Barbara McKenzie-Smith, an artist.[4] Born John Paul Rodker, his name was changed by deed poll after his parents divorced, and his mother married Edward A. Morrison III, an American citizen living in England, who flew with the RAF during the war." Who is the article about, a computer programmer or the stepson of an RAF pilot? I leave this sentence wondering which war? Do newspapers consider this noteworthy about your programming skills, that your father was an RAF pilot? In a longer article about a more notable person, this might be included.
I have watched other editors try to explain to people that their autobiographies on Wikipedia are just badly written fluff pieces, and they do not succeed. The COI tags let the readers know that the problems are there. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC))
It appears that you would like some of the non-programming-related stuff removed, and I have tried to do this, as there is a link in the article to the online biography, which has more complete information anyway. I would appreciate it very much if you could take a look at the result, and remove the COI tag if you're comfortable with the changes I have made. I have tried to use the Wayne Stevens article as a model, but, as I'm sure you realize, it's hard for me to know what should and should not be included. In fact, any changes you wish to make would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance. PS Is AfadsBad Welsh? Just curious! Jpaulm (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Still haven't heard anything. I would like to get the COI tag removed - how do I go about doing this? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


I removed the discussion of the bee from DYK to its talk page.

With regard to your comments on termites, I find that an alteration on 30th August 2011 in this edit changed the taxobox of Termite from "ordo = Isoptera" to "ordo = Blattodea". This was marked as being a minor edit and there was no explanatory edit summary. Unfortunately it was not followed up by changing the taxoboxes of other articles in the Category: Termites so you get inconsistencies between articles. I have now resolved that to the extent that I have updated the taxoboxes of all the Coptotermes articles. Will I get a pat on the back from you? No way! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia science articles lack[edit]

What do Wikipedia science articles lack?

Is it the participation of subject matter experts?

Would their involvement help?

I ask you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


I see you decided to return to wikipedia. The scathing blog still running? I haven't contributed to DYK directly now for over 6 months. I see your comment "now User:Dr.Blofeld, who we have already met for contributing to very, very bad flora and fauna sections in en.Wikipedia DYKs and Good Articles". Show me one article where I actually wrote very very bad flora and fauna sections myself. I wrote Tephrosia apollinea myself and asked for you to check it out and never got a reply or an article on your blog which left me rather disappointed :-) Oh and Ambohimanga is now a featured article. You criticised my promotion of it to GA. I believe the author is very experienced in her field too, far more experienced than you over Madagascar topics.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, I forgot you are the one who is claiming you didn't write any of the articles you took credit for. Are you asking for permission to revert to the GA version of Ambohimanga that I criticized? It was pretty funny that I recall. Go ahead. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

What do you think of...[edit]

...Naegleria fowleri? I just happened across it, and would be interested to hear how you'd rate it. I'm now starting to be deeply suspicious of all articles we have on microorganisms, but I don't have the scientific knowledge to justify that suspicion. — Scott talk 16:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I will look. Microbes are often plagiarized, especially human parasite articles, but informatively plagiarized, not randomly. Some are very bad, and taxonomies are inconsistent across en.Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC))


I think I just wrote your name in conjunction with the word "crud" at the ANI discussion when I meant Cwmhiraeth - obviously. However I'm now about to step onto a subway train so can't go back and fix it. If I did, please change it and point anyone to this comment if they have a problem with it. Sorry about that, shouldn't type while in a rush. — Scott talk 18:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an obvious typo, so it gives everyone else something less important to focus on than 1300 bad science articles in desperate need of editing. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC))
You can never tell how petty some people are going to be. I've fixed it now (and took the liberty of clearing your one-liner in reply, to avoid confusing later readers). What fun all this is, by which I mean, blecch. — Scott talk 23:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I am getting a good idea about how petty, though. Really, is this an encyclopedia or a boys' club? --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC))


I assure you, we work 5 days a week here as well ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering, so I looked it up in the Wikipedia article, nothing funny at all about a five day work week. I work an extended duty schedule, though, so longer work weeks. But, yes, five days in a row of full time work is not unheard of for the working people of Wales. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Out of pure curiosity[edit]

What is your scientific training? You can answer me privately if you wish so. I am just curious to understand where you are coming from. While I do not appreciate in full your animosity, I begin to see why you are so frustrated.--cyclopiaspeak! 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


I've engaged with you there. To be clear- I'm willing to do what I can to help the article, but you're going to need to reply to me. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Wryneck[edit]

I note that you have added a factual accuracy tag to this article. Since the whole of the section appears to be referenced, could you explain on the talk page what you believe is inaccurate? As it stands, the tag is unhelpful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Asking for geology checks[edit]

I am working on some state parks and the State of Connecticut has some resources that are quite good, but I want to make sure that they are correct and I write the sections well. I don't think I'll have too many issues with it, but it is a bit confusing since they frame in it the context of the trails in the park. Specifically it states "Rock Types Found Along the Trail" and lists Igneous with Granite and Pegmatite and Metamorphic with Granite gneiss and Alaskite gneiss, but says Sedimentary - none.[2] Could you spare some time to help fact check the actual page as well - particularly the point about Split Rock not being considered a glacial erratic because it rests upon the same rock type. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Pedra da Gávea... again[edit]

It's been awhile! First off, let me (re)introduce myself. I'm the editor who worked on Pedra da Gávea about a year ago. I'm also the editor who royally screwed up when it came to the geology section. Anyway, some time has passed, edits have been made, and I've also added a few new things (I used your blog and implemented your suggestions, and while both were a bit biting, they were very helpful). I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look over the section/article and give me an unofficial peer review. I'm not submitting this for GA approval (at least, at the moment), and it's not part of any WikiCup nomination. I'd just like to get the article looking nice (and accurate!) because I think its interesting, and I'd really appreciate a little bit of help. My knowledge of geology is, as you probably already know, a wee bit rusty.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access[edit]

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 1 February 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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)