User talk:Duncharris/archive10

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Start a new discussion

Archives

Archives of old discussions:

One / Two / Three / Four / Five / Six / Seven / Eight / Nine

Blocked for disruption & dishonesty

1. 19:20, 29 November 2005, Ed Poor blocked Duncharris (expires 19:20, 30 November 2005) (contribs) (Unblock) (disruption: said his redirect was "per suggestion" which was not actually made - dishonesty)

In your edit comment, you wrote:

• 15:24, 29 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Unguided evolution (#REDIRECT evolution per Ed's suggestion on talk) (top) [rollback]

However no one named Ed made that suggestion. Lying about your reasons is disruptive. It would have been okay, however, if you had said despite the suggestion in talk, which was to discuss it first.

You don't have to discuss redirects first - even though it's polite, and cooperative - but you have to be honest in your edit summaries.

If there is not a specific "no lying" rule that binds admins (or even ordinary users), there ought to be. Uncle Ed 19:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This has got to be the least justified block I've ever seen. Luckily, the block has already been undone. Friday (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith as per wikipedia rules would indicate that it was a typo and not lying. Blocking as a result of not assuming good faith is distruptive. 4.250.198.32 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking, but why is Dunc entitled to an assumption of good faith, but not Ed? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am certain, personally, that Ed blocked in good faith. I also believe he blocked wrongly. Fortunately, a block is quickly removed. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I very much doubt Ed blocked in good faith. In the past few days he blocked JoshuaSchroeder (whom he was in conflict with) and threatened both KillerChihuahua and FeloniusMonk. And this is the second time that he blocked Dunc in the middle of conflict. He admitted last time (in Dunc's RFC) that he was wrong to block Dunc given their conflict. This is repeat behaviour that Ed has admitted was wrong. And it hasn't been that long ago that Ed gave up his bureaucratship to settle an RFAr against him stemming from his use of admin powers. And it was only a few months ago that he de-sysopped 172 and others against policy. It appears that Ed does not consider himself bound by the rules and norms of the community. This sort of behaviour has got to stop. Guettarda 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Universism v. Humanism

Duncharris, regarding your post on my talk page, please enjoy the comparisons of Humanism and Universism that are made on the Universist website. To clarify, you are being asked to allow an article to be published, not for whether you like or understand Universism or not. If you are confused about Universism's notability, may I remind you it was recently on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. http://universist.org/media.htm Universist 02:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

acronyms?

Could I ask you to return to Talk:Irreducible complexity and spell out your acronyms? I thought I was at least reasonably fluent on the debate but I don't know who you're talking about. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there chum

I was wondering if you could pop over to Talk:Lothrop Stoddard if you get the chance. I'm having some difficulties with someone who I think is a little confused and I'm not eager to break 3RR. --Fastfission 18:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Many thanks. --Fastfission 03:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

But arguing with creationists is soooo much fun!

Look at what this anon user said: "Only one who believes in everything in the Holy Bible can be a real Christian." The possibilities to respond are endless. The Bible has so much terrible stuff in it that to be a true Christian (by his definition) you would have to be a child-eating, wife-beating wretch of a human being. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify why this page was deleted and how it can be replaced. This is frustrating. This is an important concept and idea, and I took great care to construct an encyclopedic entry on it.

I'm a real Christian and I don't believe in the Bible. (My first name is Christian, but I guess that's not what the editor meant) Christianjb 11:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Restore scienticity

Please clarify why this page was deleted and how it can be replaced. This is frustrating. This is an important concept and idea, and I took great care to construct an encyclopedic entry on it.

I have already posted this on user talk page. KillerChihuahua 20:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

consensus

>Please do not make controversial changes to articles against consensus.

I hope you are not editing the page on "consensus" because 55% of the population is not consensus in my book.

No more personal attacks

Dunc, please stop attacking me with accusations of "POV pushing" and the like. If you think I have written anything in article space which violates Wikipedia:NPOV, you can mark an article or section with {{NPOV}} or discuss the disputed text in a talk page, but your destruction of my reputation is not something I am willing to accept. Uncle Ed 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you have written lots in the article namespace that constitutes original research and POV pushing of your bizarre view of science (that plus the bullying of course). But don't take my word for it (after all I'm not Wikipedia's self-appointed #1 NPOV expert) -- have a look at the VFD logs. I am not destroying your reputation; you're managing fine all by yourself. — Dunc|☺ 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why deleted my contribution to the 'evolution' page?

Hi, put a section in the 'evolution' page called 'External Links to websites against evolution'. I'm interested to know why you deleted it? I noticed that in other articles in this wikipedia, that external links against the topic usually quite common. - I see, no response. So much for the neutrality of wikipedia! Not even allowed to put external links at the very bottom of the article. Nor to inform other users that one of the external website isn't functioning.

I see, no response. So much for the neutrality of wikipedia! Not even allowed to put external links at the very bottom of the article. Nor to inform other users that one of the external website isn't functioning.

BD2412's RFA

Thank you, Dunc, for your well-spoken support in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 02:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note new "admin gold" sig :-D}

Unguided evolution probably shouldn't redirect to Evolution.

Whatever form of evolution you're typically referring to, it's never going to be unguided, so I'm unsure why there's a redirect to Evolution going on there. Kim Bruning 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll delete it again then. Evolution is of course guided by the Darwinian process so it's more self-guided than unguided, though perhaps genetic drift which is entirely stochastic could count as unguided evolution. — Dunc|☺ 22:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Granted, but when creationists refer to UE they are talking about normal biological evolution. Guettarda 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so then the NPOV thing to do is to state that "Unguided Evolution is a creationist term (or framing) for -> Evolution" ? Kim Bruning 22:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that is what our resident expert would say. Ed? David D. (Talk) 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[Second edit conflict]Yeah - it might be worth a line in the "controversy" article (it might even be there) - but for all practical purposes it might as well either be a redirect or not exist. Guettarda 22:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict at user talk:Ed Poor

Just a little note to let you know that I didn't intend to delete your "nothing of the kind" rejoinder. My user talk page is a little busy this morning. I'll try to re-post it next chance I get, if you don't beat me to it. Cheers. Uncle Ed 15:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

hi

i actually wrote "it's said to take place" not "said to be". my sentence does not deny the fact of "selection" but wanted to stress the allegorical anthropomorphic flavor of the phrase "natural selection". but i understand your misunderstanding and i will try to fix things

we all should read and undo work by others more carefully and more constructively

also the intro is/was long but only because the body of the article is not long enough.

User:Poopface

Good call- well done! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Science of Questionable Validity

In case you haven't checked the Categories for Deletion page yet, I just wanted to make sure you were aware that I did not create the category to replace category Pseudoscience. Hackwrench 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Spiritus Intus Alit

I have reworked this into a disambig page - you may like to reconsider the afd on it in the light of it's new look. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 11:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia image galleries

Seems to be a lot of overlap with Category:Wikipedia images by type. Should these be unitify or one made a subcat of the other? -- Fplay 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Being Disruptive

Duncharris you have been disruptive on more than one occasion. Previously, you have removed my replies from several sections on 12/8/2005 without warning or explanation. That was very rude and very disruptive.

And now we have the "second law of thermodynamics" issue. I pointed out earlier that this presented a distorted version of the creationist position. I even pointed out that there was a previous section that made the same mistake before it was fixed (and I even pointed out where I you could find sources to demonstrate that the creationist position had indeed been misrepresented). I asked you to discuss it in the discussion section before reverting again. You refused and went straight to your reversion. This is disruptive, because as I pointed out earlier it is not the case that creationists claim the "Second Law is incompatible" with "the coming into existence of complex systems" and as I said I gave sources to support my claims. You have recklessly continued this misrepresentation of the minority view in spite of my warnings. Please do not do so again. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Dunc hasn't posted here or answered any of the Talk posts for over a week. He's obviously not very interested in replying. I've experienced this same problem with Dunc, though. We should consider reporting it as admin abuse. He reverts and doesn't say why. I think it's a shame that he hasn't considered your arguments and responded to them. It's certainly admin abuse when an admin doesn't listen to users, reverts their contributions, and gives no reason why. --Jason Gastrich 20:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Dunc just gave me notice that I was on my third revert on the second law of thermodynamics section (by the rules, I cannot do another revert in about 24 hours). Given his behavior, it may indeed be appropriate to report him for admin abuse. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

More vexacious litigation, great. The note to editors page at the top is not for discussing your definition of theory, it is for informing creationists who arrive and complain about NPOV without any justification that we've been here before. You need to explain NPOV problems on talk pages. I note I'm not the only one to revert your pov pushing on 2LOT. As for not answering my talk page for a week, I try to respons but I try not to feed the trolls. I welcome you reporting me because I'll be vindicated. — Dunc|☺ 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dunc, what POV on 2LOT are you talking about? Removing distorted versions of creationist claims is not POV. Recklessly putting forth distorted versions of the minority view is disruptive, particularly after warnings and citations to the contrary.

For sake of argument, suppose you are the only person qualified to make notes to editors. You didn't just remove my suggestion regarding how to use the terminology, you removed several other of my replies to other sections as well. This is very rude and disruptive. I don't know why you think you would be vindicated in light of your unacceptable behavior. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "You need to explain NPOV problems on talk pages." Ditto. Instead, you made the reversion on the second law without explaining your NPOV problem on the talk page, despite my request. Please do not add hypocrisy to your disruption. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Please report my "admin abuse". — Dunc|☺ 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade, you're way out of line here. It is you who has been disruptive. Duncharris has been cleaning up after your repeated inserting of your own POV, which is exactly what an admin is supposed to do. Don't for a minute think that you can bully him into not doing his job with threats and baseless allegations. This is very thin ice you're skating on, Wade. I advise to rethink your strategy. FeloniousMonk 22:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why am I out of line? What POV have I been inserting? You have not explained (neither has Dunc). On my own talk page you accused me of making false claims, an accusation without evidence. If you think my claims are false, simply follow the links and see for yourself. Don't for a minute think that you can bully me with threats and baseless allegations. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD -> IfD

Thanks for pointing that out :) - FrancisTyers 14:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Question - how do I go about deleting the AfD page? Thanks - FrancisTyers 14:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

GWR 6959 Class

Please explain why you re-broke the links from the name versions of the locomotives. --David Woolley 16:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect target for Differential reproduction

Hi Dunc, just thought I'd mention that I think Selection is a better redirect target for Differential reproduction than is Darwinism. -Cheers. Pete.Hurd 17:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but I think you can get selection without reproduction, e.g. pebbles on a beach, sports leagues, etc. — Dunc|☺ 17:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but the selection page deals entirely with biological selection, selection for alleles via natural, artificial, sexual selction in a population... -Cheers, Pete.Hurd 09:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm blocked?

I hardly ever even log into my account and I was going to leave a comment by mistakingly pressed the edit button. I got this message;

You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.

Your IP address is 64.233.173.85. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Duncharris.

The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "UrineForGas". The reason given for UrineForGas's block is: "bad username".

That isn't right. I haven't left any vandalism on any pages or anything like that. I don't know why you banned me. I guess just a wierd mistake.

Oops. I just left the "I'm Blocked?" message. I couldn't edit it because I'm banned from editing, but my user name is Cereal Box Conspiracy.

Hi Dunc, please help

I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

queller of free speech

It was an amusingly (at least from my point of view) gay school. I'm sure things weren't so innocent for everyone. I'd like to know. Got a problem with that?

BGS sufferer, 1977-1986

[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Duncharris,

Thanks for your welcome and web pages. The only problem is that I am finding it difficult to get the footnote and reference links to work properly even though I have tried constructing them using the templates. I still have not figured out how to get them to work properly on the polystrate article page. I guess that I will figure it out in time.

Best Regards,

Paul H.

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a New Year filled with vandal-whacking. Guettarda 15:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh

Isn't there some kind of rule against changing the words of a member on their own talk page? Mark K. Bilbo 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll get the same answer I gave WarriorScribe: it's generally in bad taste. However, he (first) changed (only) a link I posted on his talk page (that spoke about WarriorScribe/Dave Horn) to point to a different page owned and operated by him. This made it look like I actually posted that link when I didn't. So, I changed a link that he posted about me (that pointed to a hate site about me) to a biographical page owned and operated by me. Fair is fair. --Jason Gastrich 23:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. So it's tit for tat eh? How Christ like of you. Mark K. Bilbo 00:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the Scripture commands to "turn the other cheek" do not seem to apply to Gastrich (along with lots of other Biblical instructions, which is why he's a phony as a "Christian"), he should realize that I did him a favor. The maleboge.com site is a collection of lies and his guise as "Fraud Buster" was, itself, a fraud. In other words, he lied to the readers, yet again. Let's also add that what Gastrich did was not quite what I did. I did not change a link on his talk page...I changed it on mine. Gastrich has already shown that he feels that he can do whatever he likes on his "talk" page, including the speedy removal of adminstrative criticisms (note how fast his warning for violating the 3R rule was removed by him), so I guess I can do whatever I like on mine...right? Of course, that's not right. But the last person to be criticizing anyone should be Gastrich. Point made. WarriorScribe 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much

When I think of all of us who worked together so hard for so long, I think of the line from Henry V We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

It was a fun ride, wasn't it? So thanks you guys, that meant a lot to me.

Who did the Thelonious with a mop artwork? Brilliant! FeloniousMonk 08:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response

The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.

• I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. -- Bonaparte talk 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Let me know if you actually get a mediation going - or if you need help teaching Bonaparte how to archive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to state your opinion on the latest changes of the article Second law of thermodynamics? thank you. Bonaparte talk 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope one year was enough until now :)! Bonaparte talk 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine-tuned universe

"Guillermo Gonzalez" links to an article about a soccer player :-). I'll include it. Dave (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Darwin -- Wedgwood family

Hi Dunc. Is there a reason why Category:Darwin -- Wedgwood family was named thus, rather than Category:Darwin-Wedgwood family (in line with Darwin-Wedgwood family)? Regards, CLW 13:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's supposed to be an m dash (which wasn't supported, but now is), not a hyphen. A hyphen suggests one name, e.g. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, whereas an m dash suggests two independent names, which is the case here, since Darwin-Wedgwood wasn't used as a surname. — Dunc|☺ 14:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. In that case, should Darwin-Wedgwood family be moved back to Darwin -- Wedgwood family? And when you say the em-dash is now supported, does that mean that my browser (Firefox 1.5) should be showing the category with an em dash instead of two en dashes ('cos it isn't...)? CLW 14:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No m dashes are supported now, they weren't when I made the category, so it probably should be Darwin — Wedgwood family (I think there are supposed to be spaces too). — Dunc|☺ 14:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"nonsense" is in the eye of the beholder

"nonsense" is in the eye of the beholder. I believe that everything that I wrote is completely true and factual. I find that OTHER people have written complete garbage and falsehoods. Oh yeah, politely fuck off. Cheers!

The life that I have

Hi! I must have inadvertantly sinned. You removed the Violet Szabo code poem and some other text from the article The Life That I Have. Why? If there's a problem, is it ok to link to an external website? Without access to the poem, the article is emasculated. Nice photo :) Happy New Year. Folks at 137 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

James Holden

You changed James Holden in to a disambig. page, but the original content seems to have been lost. Is your link pointing to the wrong place?

I moved it to James Holden (musician) it was deleted by Petaholmes (talk · contribs) at # 11:42, 28 December 2005 for violating WP:CSD no A7 (failure to claim any notability). See WP:MUSIC. — Dunc|☺ 20:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

British Rail regions

Hi Duncharris! Are you going to move all "X Region of British Railways" articles to "X Region"? It seems to me that many of the other regions are disambiguation pages, and whilst the London Midland region will probably not need a dab, for consistency should all regions be called the same?

If nothing else, looking at the history it suggests to me that the regions were originally at "X Region" and were all moved to "X Region of British Railways" in order to be consistent. Perhaps there was a consensus for this original change (I don't know)?

Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think shorter names the better and the LMR is not ambiguous. Perhaps the others should be in the form Southern Region (British Railways). — Dunc|☺ 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that, but consistency is important for our readers. Asking readers to negotiate between 6 articles all on the same subject but some of which are named very differently to others is asking a bit much! Personally, I'd move the LMR back to where it was; or change all 5 existing articles to the "X Region (British Railways)" format, and then check the links for the North Eastern Region and make sure that fits the new pattern.

I know the latter's a lot of hard work, but the alternative is potentially confusing readers, which really won't do. Plus, was there consensus for the original move to dab pages plus "X region of British Railways"? If there was, common courtesy requires getting a new consensus on the changes.

The last thing anyone wants is to provoke a revert war with the railway fanatics! I'm not one, BTW, I just once worked for BR and have a fondness for them (they were a great employer and it was a great job; then we were sold down the river, vast numbers were made redundant or got pay cuts and everything went to hell. BR weren't perfect, but there's been nothing better since, honestly). Anyway, nationalisation rant over! I'm just seeking consistency and dreading the war that will follow trainspotters not getting it! ;) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

I go off and get hit by a hurricane and find out you've been fighting with Ed Poor and being nasty. Bad Dunc, no cookie! (I started writing this before seeing Snowspinner's comment too) -- Cyrius|✎ 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Possessive singular nouns

Hi Duncharris, please note that correct usage of the possessive of a name in English includes the s after the apostrophe. It is therefore Dawkins's not Dawkins' - see Skrunk and White's "Elements of Style" (http://orwell.ru/library/others/style/e/estyle_1.htm) and the Chicago Manual of Style (no free edition unfortunately, you'll have to buy it). Mikkerpikker 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Both styles are considered correct, depending on whom you consult. Does Wikipedia have an official view on this? -- dmh on Wiktionary

"Interesting factoid but not relevant"

Not wanting to start an edit war here, but ...

Given that the term "Mitochondrial Eve" stems directly from Genesis, and that it misleadingly suggests a first human as opposed to a common ancestor, and that there is a better referent directly available in Genesis, Noah's wife seems perfectly relevant. The term "mitochondrion" has nothing to do with the Bible, but "mitochondrial Eve" very explicitly does.

I'm not really up on the Wikipedia process, so I don't know exactly where to go from here, but I don't feel that summary deletion was the best option.

Mark K. Bilbo entry

Duncharis, I'm not sure if you've followed the Cabal mediation and the talk page on this entry. Nonetheless, don't you think it would be best to be more specific about Bilbo's posts that offend? The talk page lists 12 instances and I find it much more informative and accurate to articulate what he says that is offensive. Your thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason, given your track record of trying to discredit your opponents, this is what you are doing here. You are not representative of Christianity, you are a fringe Internet kook. In particular, you should give examples of others being "offended". I think given the nature of Usenet, that the whole reaction to his posts is really irrelevant. Of course if he states his opinion, he will be opposed. Of course if he comes across fundies who don't follow Jesus' advice to love thy neighbour, they will hate him. You're one of them. To that end, it's probably better to delete both sentences as they say nothing of interest to importance. — Dunc|☺ 15:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for name calling and personal attacks. They aren't very becoming of an admin.

Mark Bilbo isn't my "opponent." I only know him from Usenet. He's an author of technical books and man with a web site and a list. How is he really opposing me?

Notice how Gastrich tries to minimize the situation, but he gives the game away by mentioning the "list." What is the "list?" It's a numbered list of atheists, participating at alt.atheism, that Mark kept on his server. Once Gastrich discovered this list, he wanted to obtain it so that he could issue daily, public prayers (designed to single out and embarrass those individuals) and also so he could know whom in Usenet are the "atheists" (just as he's labelled as many atheists as he thinks have articles here at Wikipedia). Mark denied him the list and put up a block on the server to prevent Gastrich from downloading it.

Gastrich used a proxy, went around the block, and took the list, anyway. If it's "theft" to take something that doesn't belong to you and that has even been specifically denied to you, then Gastrich committed theft. Mark and several others exposed this act and took Gastrich to task, pretty severely, for it. It's one of the reasons that Gastrich "left Usenet" shortly thereafter.

So when Gastrich tries to play innocent and tell you that all he knows of Mark Bilbo is that he's a Usenet participant whom has written some books and maintains a server and a "list," he's being disingenuous. We can dismantle most of Gastrich's defenses of his actions in this way. He's almost constantly trying to "put one over" on people. WarriorScribe 17:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate Bilbo. I've never cursed at him or mocked him. I've never told him that I hated him. This is a wild and unfounded accusation.

I think we all know that one needn't be specific about such things--they can certainly be clear by tone, language, and approach. When a case has been presented that supports the contention that Gastrich hates Bilbo, is jealous of him, and wants to get back at him, "do not" will not suffice as rebuttal. WarriorScribe 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You skirted the issue I wrote you about. Wiki is about facts. Let's remove non-facts and just write the facts. In short, Bilbo uses profanity and mocks God and Christians.

You see, we can examine this more deeply and find still more to make Gastrich's case of less merit and demonstrate that his own position as POV-driven. For example, Mark cannot "mock God" because he doesn't believe in "God" or that "God" exists. Gastrich views his commentary in these cases as mocking God because Gastrich does believe that God exists and believes in him (or, at least, his version of "him."). Most of us whom actually either took part in or witnessed those exchanges know this. WarriorScribe 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is irregular behavior and should be noted.

It is not "irregular behavior," not in Usenet and not even in life. Gastric's seemingly sheltered upbringing should not be a determining factor in these things. The use of profanity is common in society. Name-calling also occurs commonly. Society tends to be more restrained about it because we can put faces to names, generally, and that's lacking in Usenet. In Usenet, at least, these sorts of exchanges are also fairly common, but may get heated more rapdily. Within even that context, it doesn't matter. Usenet participants are generally only a small minority of Internet users, and those populating free.christians and other, similarly-themed groups constitutes a still smaller number. Those in alt.atheism are also a relatively small number. These are facts that Gastrich does not want to be relevant, but they are relevant, nonetheless. WarriorScribe 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing it altogether is out of the question. How do you think we should include these notable facts in an nPOV way? --Jason Gastrich 15:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing it altogether is, of course, quite reasonable to everyone but Gastrich. His is about him and getting his way--despite the talk, his record makes it clear that he's about that and nothing else. He's all about division (the overwhelming majority of his "contributions" and "edits" at Wikipedia has been composed of categorizing people as "Christian" or "atheist."). Gastrich despises atheists and has frequently attempted to belittle and make fun of them in Usenet (and other) venues, and what we have been seeing for the last few days is not his first tantrum, when he doesn't get his way or when he's been rebuffed or even challenged. It may be that Gastrich needs a few days from Wiki to cool off. He won't do that on his own. WarriorScribe 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not notable facts. As I stated previously, you are trying to assasinate his character on no basis whatsoever. To do that you rewrite the sentence in an NPOV manner. Rewrite it in an NPOV manner and it says nothing. Of course it insults the fundies, the fundies get offended by everything! You should try to cite examples of others being "offended" by such remarks if you really want to push the point. — Dunc|☺ 15:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In a sense, this conversation was over when you perjured yourself by calling me names and launching personal attacks. (Gastrich)

How these things, even if true, constitute perjury, Gastrich will almost certainly never say. It's just another fancy-sounding word Gastrich thinks he can use in an argument and, as is often the case, the use is misplaced. There has been no "perjury" here. WarriorScribe 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Gastrich, continuing) Nonetheless, I will conclude with a couple of things.

Whether or not his words are offensive is a subjective judgment. Therefore, we should simply give some examples (even citations) of his language. The way he talks certainly isn't normal and it's certainly notable. Some will be offended and some won't, but that's not really the point. The point is that he mocks Christians and God and uses profanity and name calling. Since you do the same (at least to some degree), I see why you don't think it's notable; but it is.

I have no ability or desire to assassinate Bilbo's character. I'm merely reporting the facts. If his character has been murdered, then he has committed suicide on his own character. --Jason Gastrich 16:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's simple enough really - WP:V and WP:CITE. Find a respectable academic source which says he uses "profanity and mockery" and quote it. Otherwise, obviously, it's an opinion, or at best, it's a violation of WP:NOR. Guettarda 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In that the article is about me, I've been trying to keep some distance but this whopper is too much Gastrich. You must be hoping people don't look too closely at Usenet because they'll discover that not only do you and I have a history but that you started it with your forays into alt.atheism. The second of which is caused the fall out of which you complain so much now. And this isn't the first time you've tried to attack someone in the Wikipedia. You went after Reggie Finley on the Wife_Swap page. You and Finley also have a history. I didn't ask for that blasted article to exist. I didn't know it did until you started your games. I definitely would rather it be deleted entirely than used by you to launch your petty little attacks. This is personal and you know it. Stop trying to pretend you're being "factual" and "encyclopedic." Reality is, you just don't like me. And that's all this is. Mark K. Bilbo 16:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bonaparte#Mark_K._Bilbo_entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_K._Bilbo

Isn't it Funny (The Gastrich "Debate")

When Bonaparte, a mediator, made a statement that Gastrich could include his paragraph, Gastrich touted it as a "ruling" from an "admin." He reposted his sentence, complete with commentary that it was not to be changed or removed, per this "ruling." He got pretty bent out of shape, trying to use that as leverage, when it was challenged, as such. How dare we challenge an "admin?"

Well, as it turned out, Bonaparte is not an admin. There was no "ruling," certainly nothing that would prevent the comment from being further edited.

Now we have an admin--the real thing--whom has entered the discussion, examined the facts, and made a change in the article. This is certainly, at least, an implied ruling by an admin, isn't it?

So why is it that Gastrich, when he thought he had won the issue with the backing of an "admin," was all about everyone else abiding by the "ruling" of this "admin," but when a real admin makes what can be viewed as, at least, an implied ruling, and it's not what Gastrich wants, he wants to argue about it?

I'll tell you why: It's because the only thing Gastrich cares about is getting his way. I couldn't have made up a more clear example of that than what Gastrich is giving us over this issue. WarriorScribe 17:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Some rail questions

Hi Dunc! Since you are the only guru I know about here on rail I wonder if could ask you a few questions...

1. How long do you think an article on a locomotive ought to be before we can say it is not a stub? I have created a few articles on the Norwegian locomotives in the past weeks, and some people seem to think that {{elec-loco-stub}} needs to be filled with articles in order to be worthy.
2. Exactly what is the definition of "slam door" with regard to passenger carriages. Does it simply mean the doors are conventional ones on hinges, or does it refer to the carriages with lots of doors all leading directly into the main seating area?
3. The coupling rod article says that they refer to the rods on the driving wheels of a steam engine. What are the similar rods called on (usually older) electric locomotives?

Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I have tried updating the coupling rods article. Thanks also for the links, I was wondering what "A1A-A1A" meant when I was writing the NSB Di 3 article. Now I know. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Singapore? Quarterly something? What?

I got a warning about vandalism. I've never been to any page about Singapore. What's this all about?

"Genesis Creation Myth"

See my entry on the talk page for Mitochondrial Eve for my explanation. Yes, I'm a creationist. No, I don't believe that Eve was the only living female (for very long) or that she is the ancestor of all humanity. No, I'm definitely not a biologist. I'm just trying to keep things neutral.

The Bilbo Issue

Hey, dude...please check the talk page for Mark Bilbo. This really needs to end. See Mark's comments, in particular, near the bottom of the page. Thanks. WarriorScribe 04:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum/Epilogue: If this doesn't provide some insight into Gastrich's motivation for the whole thing, nothing will [wink]. Meanwhile, here's my response. WarriorScribe 18:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

River Plate

Please desist from moving Río de la Plata back to River Plate. I raised the issue [and I wasn't the first to do so] on 22 December, 2005, and a week later, moved the article, with the full approval of everyone who participated in the discussion. If you disapproved, you should have spoken up. If you disapprove now, speak up now. Moving the article and overwriting the disambig at River Plate is not good editing practice. Tomer^talk 11:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the only thing I see you've ever contributed to a discussion of the name of the article is to direct attention to Wikipedia:Use common names, from which I quote the first paragraph for you:

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page.

If you read my arguments on Talk:Río de la Plata and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Naming, you'll note that it is specifically because of this convention that I argued in favor of Río de la Plata... Tomer^talk 11:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I give up. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. — Dunc|☺ 11:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Argh. That's not the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Looking over the discussion of the very move I finally went ahead and made, after much encouragement, both on WP:talk and via email and on IRC, I see that since last October, you are basically the only one who strongly opposes the move, yet I haven't yet seen anything stronger argued by you other than "Use common names", which is exactly why I made the move. I'm on IRC as Tomer_ if you want to discuss it with more rapid interaction. Tomer^talk 11:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

final decision

Please see talk page for final decision from the Cabal Mediator Bonaparte talk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Williams Revolution

Hi Dunc, can you take a look at Talk:Williams revolution?. The article could at least do with some sources, and while I'm sure you have a good reason for reverting Samsara's edits I think it's clear from that talk page that Samsara was acting in good faith, so he deserves an explanation of why they were reverted. Joe D (t) 21:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

In your vote on my Arbcom voting page, you indicated that you don't trust me. May I inquiry as to why not? Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just get a feeling that you're not 100% doing the arbcom thing for the right reason. — Dunc|☺ 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Why do you think I'm "doing the arbcom thing"? What's wrong with that reason, whatever it is, and what do you think is the right reason? Kelly Martin (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

River Plate

Renewed attention required on Talk:Río de la Plata Jooler 00:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA/William M. Connolley 2

You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. (SEWilco 06:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Thankyou. I had already voted. He was very harshly treated for giving the climate change trolls what they deserve. — Dunc|☺ 09:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your edit

Hi, could you explain your edit here. You have used roll back on what did not seem to be vandalism. Please respond on the article's talkpage or my talkpage. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 12:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That may not have been vandalism per se but for some reason this newbie was moving all references to Taunton to Taunton, Somerset. When special:whatlinkshere/Taunton makes clear that there is no need for dabbing of Taunton. — Dunc|☺ 12:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Taunton, Somerset

Please explain your reversions, as this is a perfectly acceptable practice in the event of a name that has multiple meanings none of which are predominant. It appears to be little more than an Anglocentric abuse of power at this point. Darkildor 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not make mass multiple moves without discussing them first. — Dunc|☺ 09:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Dunc! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, please!

No calling creationists 'cretinists' - be civil. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Río de la Plata / River Plate

Hi, It's a while since you were last seen on the talk page for Río de la Plata, so I thought I'd just let you know that there's a vote currently in progress on moving it back to River Plate. -- Arwel (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Number 8

Number 8 is sometimes refered to as 'lock forward'. This is why in league 'loose fowards' are called 'locks' in Australia. Think about it, what was a number 8 called before player numbers were invented? Answer: Lock forward. Presumably the name 'number 8' stuck because it was the only position to have the same number under both the old number system which counted from the fullback forwards was switched to the modern system which numbers from the front row back.

It is not so common these days but I know for a fact that it is still on occasion used.GordyB 14:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Napolean

So much for our illustrious mediator. David D. (Talk) 22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is there is a policy to have this template on the User pages of all indefinetly blocked users? If it is not I would rather not have this template on Bonaparte's User page, despite to have my reasons to be angre on him abakharev 23:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it helps because it puts them in a category. — Dunc|☺ 09:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis

Hi! You reverted my reverts in Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Could you please comment why?

My reasoning why the added section should not be there:

The article of the section is a question: "Ham's Salary -- Milking the Nonprofit Cash Cow?". An encyclopedia should contain facts, not speculation.

The tone of the addition seems to be one-sided, argumentative, and not befitting of an encyclopedia entry. Exclamation marks, random italics, random bolding.

There is vague speculation at the end: "might want to consider whose pocket those donations are lining." Is that encyclopedia material? Political opinion blogging perhaps, but not befitting an encyclopedia in my opinion.

If salaries of some people are important enough to be encyclopedia material surely they can be mentioned in a less partisan manner? The way the entry is now clearly shows the author has strong one-sided opinions about the matter - not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and does not give confidence that even the facts are presented fully and honestly. Weregerbil 13:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm, well it probably needs a citation, needs less editorializing, but I think it's still a valid point if made properly. — Dunc|☺ 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hence my edit comment: rv. Are there encyclopedia-worthy facts there? If so, please resubmit just the facts with less hostile and more NPOV language. Please use a blog for political commentary. I haven't compared various similar articles to see if salary comparisons are commonly made in Wikipedia. Making one in one particular case as a blatant device of attack and to push someone's personal political agenda feels ...non-encyclopedic to me. Weregerbil 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wiktionarypar

You, along with several other editors, suggested replacing {{wiktionary}} with {{wiktionarypar}} a while ago, which is gradually being done. Netoholic is now repeatedly redirecting Template:Wiktionarypar. Please read the prior discussion of this (which I've reminded Netoholic of) at Template talk:Wiktionary and contribute. You may want to put Template:Wiktionarypar on your watchlist. Uncle G 08:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aetheronometry

Hi Duncharris, any reason why you reverted my edit (I hope you understood that the summary was directed at TTLR - we actually had an edit conflict removing his junk). --Stephan Schulz 18:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

69.122.182.198

She's back on my talk page at the moment, ie Katherine Johnson - any idea what we do? If you look at her contribs at the number, there's not a useful contrib amongst the lot! SatuSuro 09:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see too much of a problem with 69.122.182.198 (talk · contribs). She's probably trying for a reaction, so just ignore her. — Dunc|☺ 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thomas and friends

Sir,

Of all the tripe for kids on the tv, thomas is palatable and I find myself watching with my little boys

WHY? Because there were real trains these toys were made after, and the mechanics facinate me.

Before I start getting inundated with'how-things-work' questions, I need to find tecnical diagrams and/or animations of Thomas and friends. I found your tank engine stuff on Wikipedia, but how the hell does that thing go??? Thereris no visible piston!!! I am guilty of sitting through several discs and tapes trying to figure out the mechanics of that silly blue tank engine.

Could you help, sir?

Father of Two

Not quite sure what your question is but here goes. Thomas, who is a LB&SCR E2 Class has two inside cylinders, regulated though valve gear (probably Stephenson valve gear), which will drive onto (probably) the middle axle. I can't find any drawings but if you see this picture of a 4F: http://www.44422.co.uk/Resources/Gallery%20Overhaul%20Final/200105b.jpg the plate below the smokebox door has been removed and you can see the two cylinders inside there under the smokebox. Inside cylinders are more stable resulting in fewer lateral forces and thus less hammer blow, whereas outside cylinders are easier to maintain. — Dunc|☺ 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Humorous that you found it and moved it to a more appropriate name before I was able to post a little message to you about it. ;-) Your input is of course also desired on this. --Fastfission 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Um... uh oh...

Okay now, this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Native_American

If an actual native sees it, the fur is gonna fly. I don't think the Wiki needs Gastrich to drag them into the "who's an Indian" debate. That is one hot button issue in Indian Country let-me-tell-you.

Myself, I'm mostly Norse (really, I was startled, get it from both sides of my family) via French and British ancestors. Glow-in-the-dark white. But I've got friends (even some family) who are full blooded, reservation raised, still speak their ancestral language, card carrying Indian type persons. Lived on a reservation for almost six years. Been active in native rights issues at various times in my life.

And I don't know where to begin on how wrong this is, minor little userbox as it may be... Mark K. Bilbo 23:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

HMS Cumberland (C57) moving

HMS Cumberland (57) is its proper name and title, i have updated the article with your and mind information. I have moved the article to HMS Cumberland (57) and ask for HMS Cumberland (C57) deletion. Please do not revert a article that is just an update not an completed new article please.

Thank You

HMS Cumberland (C57)

I have requested for this article to be moved, for more information look at Talk:HMS Cumberland (C57).

Please do not bite the newcomers

Regarding the HMS Cumberland (C57) → HMS Cumberland (57) naming issue and your rather brusque comments on MiniEntente's talk page, please remember our do not bite the newcomers guideline. Yes MiniEntente was not following proper move procedure, but that happens sometimes when new people are bold. --Kralizec! | talk 06:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

please

Could you stop vandalism on rugby union ?

thanks a lot

A wihipedia.fr writer

which like rugby

Rugby union project

There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union that you probably don't know about. The league equivalent is working quite nicely but the union one only has five participants. So I'm leaving messages on the talk pages of the main contributors. You don't have to join up but your contribution would be welcomed.GordyB 10:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Evolution warning

Damn, my edit got reverted in 2 minutes. I was hoping for at least 5. Well you can rest assure that I did not make that to promote some unscientific, religious doctrine. I just thought it was funny. School boards can do it so why not a Wikipedian? --Arm 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If a mother dies childless she is not a mother!!

I edited this tract which you just reverted:

Starting with the entire human population alive around 150,000 years ago, lineages will become extinct as mothers die childless or only have male children. Eventually, only a single lineage remains, which is the same as before.

The sentence makes no sense - if a mother dies childless - she isn't a mother. Maybe you need to change 'mother' to 'woman', or else mention that if she has a daughter, the daughter must have no children.Michael Dorosh 23:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...

Over at Cindy_Sheehan there is one or more users inserting materials or referencing the website "Zombietime.com" which by all appearances is a personal website of a bloggish nature. Seems to be a personal website aimed at criticizing (he said euphamistically) liberals. My understanding of Reliable Sources would be that such a site is never allowed as a secondary source (such as info about Sheehan). I suspect a Gastrich style "NPOV is including my website" kind of thing. Am I off base here? Take a look if you can. Thanks. Mark K. Bilbo 15:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proceedings of the Royal Society

Hi, I've noticed your merging-proposal, but I'm not sure about what you mean. I had already merged the two articles, no information was lost. The complete history section and the extra links have all been incorporated into the other article. I started Proceedings of the Royal Society because I wasn't aware that an article about the journal(s) already existed. As far as I know, Proceedings of the Royal Society is the most common name, whereas Proceedings of the Royal Society of London is the historical name. The Royal Society uses Proceedings of the Royal Society, that's why I made the other article a redirect. Cheers! Nobbie 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But if you create a duplicate article you ought to use the original. — Dunc|☺ 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand what you mean. I've merged my article into the original article. I now suggest moving the page to the more common (and current) name Proceedings of the Royal Society. The edit history will be preserved. I also suggest making the Proceedings of the Royal Society B article a section of the main article as long as it is a stub. Nobbie 10:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

TOC

Hi, I've just seen your change on the 222 page. I know train operating company pointing to National Rail is a bit odd, but it redirects there anyway, so changing it avoided a redirect. Perhaps it should point to [[National Rail#Train operating companies]]? Willkm 18:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No we need a separate article on train operating company. — Dunc|☺ 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: wheel arrangements

An interesting observation; I've seen the AAR notation used more widely around here than UIC, but I have no strict preference for either. This seems like a good topic to bring up on the project talk page. Slambo (Speak) 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a clue

I'm sorry, I'm the railway man, not the train guy. I don't know where this train comes from, although I do recongnize it... Migdejong 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this one for google bombing... lelijk hoofd. IT doesn't work yet, but lelijk hoofd already designates my user site... Migdejong 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag

(diff) Dunc, removal of dispute tags is a type of vandalism: Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism; Please replace the tag. Thank you. agapetos_angel 13:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, that's just it. There is no clear consensus (see Talk). Editors are still working on a respectable version, from both 'sides' of the debate over that section. Therefore, removing the tag was vandalism. And I didn't revert the last one; just left you a note so you would see it (since you don't appear to be reading the Talk). Thanks agapetos_angel 13:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, not only are you not checking talk, but now you are not reading commentary? You 'reverted something' (is that 4?) that was never changed! (1)diff(2)diff(3). See? agapetos_angel 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You must have inserted something in order for the page to change. If you ask around you will see that most people consider inserting random spaces to be vandalism, and thus something that should be rolled back. Guettarda 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sarcasm on my talk page, cute. Verifiablity is being attempted/added and edits are being currently being discussed in talk (if you look there, you will see that even Alai is getting frustrated with your reverts that are removing valid links and edit that he made). How about this? Please read talk, please stop vandalising the article by removing tags, and please stop accusing me of failing to follow NPOV when you aren't even in the ballpark of the dispute discussion, k? Furthermore, please see above where I outlined that your last revert wasn't a revert of anything. agapetos_angel 14:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see above AA - you're the one who has now reverted to vandalism to make a point or something. Guettarda 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A dummy edit is not vandalism. It was to get Dunc's attention that his removal of the disputed tag was vandalism and to please replace it, as he was evidently not responding in talk and just reverting (evidenced be the null revert). agapetos_angel 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I apologise for accidentally reverting a null edit. (Quite why one was needed when we have a talk page, but I digress). I presumed incorrectly that AA was edit warring, which I shouldn't have expected him to do at all. Naughty me. — Dunc|☺ 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, if you would respond on the talk page, dummy edits wouldn't be necessary. Alai has asked why you and Jim keep reverting his valid and undisputed edits and link additions. And your commentary shows that you are not grasping the dispute, as you are complaining about NPOV and POV pushing, when that isn't the dispute at all. There are about 5 (maybe 6) editors who are reworking both the header and the 'scientist?' section, and as a dispute is ongoing regarding the latter, the tag is appropriate. Please replace. agapetos_angel 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm watching you. If I thought you had said anything important or relevent I would have commented (and indeed I have occasionally). I don't think crossposting of monologues is very useful though. Don't feed the trolls, as they say. — Dunc|☺ 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Crossposted to retain them on my talk for the moderator to review, that's all. You still haven't reverted what you vandalised. agapetos_angel 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, please don't report me at WP:VIP, I must have been confused by the dragons in my garage. — Dunc|☺ 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology

"Does anyone know anything about the basic principles of anthropology?" I found this comment at Talk:Human to be rather terse and enigmatic. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should introduce Human in the way an anthropology textbook might? --JWSchmidt 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: US govt pictures

Yup, got it after I left for work. Just a bit busy this week getting ready for the Mad City Model Railroad Show and Sale and for a clinic on molding and casting parts out of epoxy resin for the SCWD on Sunday. I'll see what I can do. Slambo (Speak) 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wedgwood family tree explosion

I was just wondering why the sudden explosion of entries for descendants of Josiah Wedgwood?

Also if you are looking for cousin marriages in the family, Jessie Wedgwood, daughter of John Wedgwood and Louisa Jane Allen, married her double first cousin, Henry Wedgwood, son of Josiah Wedgwood II and Elizabeth Allen. Also Josiah Wedgwood IV's first wife, Ethel Bowen, was a first cousin (their mothers were sisters, Emily Frances Rendel and Emily Catherine Rendel)

--Erp 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

DAB Perth

Hi I took the liberity of dabbing Perth in your Archive 1 page, I have been fixing perth links and intend getting it down to zero before the end of the month. Sorry if I've offened Gnangarra 14:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please leave my. Perth should be about the city in Scotland with Perth (disambiguation) dablinking at the top. It isn't because of self-obsessesed Australians who don't know their geography or place. — Dunc|☺ 14:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not self obsessed. I know my geography. So whats my place??

There has been a concensus reached as to how Perth is used within wikipedia. I was not altering the consenus only cleaning up the dab list. Gnangarra 13:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Using rollback on non-vandalism edits

Hi, Duncharris, could you explain why you are using the rollback privilege on an edit which is clearly not vandalism [1]? Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I cannot explain why you think it was not vandalism when it clearly was. — Dunc|☺ 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is after Talrias himself used rollback on my rollback of his edit to that page. <shakes head in bemusement> Guettarda 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, do as I say, not as I do: [2] Oh the irony... FeloniousMonk 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ZOMG_Userpage_edit_war. Kim Bruning 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Duncharris, I, and many others, interpreted the text (which you reverted to) as an allegation that Igor Alexander (the founder of Wikipedia Review) is the Nazi Alex Linder. How is removing such an allegation vandalism? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I hear you always need the last word... — Dunc|☺ 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wha?

You sent me a message... and I have no idea what you're talking about. Augustinian 22:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hey, I really am not a sock puppet... I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was until just now, nor did I know about the 'three-revert' rule. In fact, I just signed up today. So... yeah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Augustinian (talk • contribs) .

So how do I get of this 'suspected sock-puppet' list? Augustinian 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rugby Union Six Nations Championship

Is there a reason why we need the 'Rugby Union' bit at the beginning? I've never heard of any other tournament with the same name.GordyB 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page of this page for days and nobody objected to this move, I left the above message on your talk page and you gave no reason why you reverted this move. I ask again is there a reason why this article should not be called simply 'Six Nations Championship'? If there is fine; otherwise can you please stop reverting it.GordyB 21:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't move it the normal way since there already is a Six Nations Championship page. I don't know what the correct way to do this is. Should I move the data to the Six Nations Championship and then put the Rugby Union Six Nations Championship page up for deletion or did you have something else in mind?GordyB 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is now listed as a requested move. So far, the only comments are from GordyB and myself, who both support the move. Please make your views and reasons known at Talk:Rugby Union Six Nations Championship#Requested move, otherwise the page will be moved. Andrewa 09:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tr201

Hi. Unfortunately my picture collecion is a bit small right now. As soon as I get the picture of better quality I'll let you know
CCMichalZ 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names

Further to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). Regards--A Y Arktos 10:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW You might want to look into the 2nd Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names. It appears that the "c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and c. 14 for endorse" outcome of the first wasn't clear. -- User:Docu

football

The Victorian Rules folk are trying to claim that Aussie Rules is an Australian variety of the game when it is very distinctly a Victorian variation of football and was codified in Victoria many years before the beginning of Australia. If you share the same opinion I would love for you to come to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football and give your opinion.

All the best

04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

BR subclasses

I am in two minds about this. Whilst it would allow further detail, there is hardly any difference between some subclasses, e.g. 66/0, 66/4, 66/5 and 66/7 are virtually the same, and only 66/6 ad 66/9 differ significantly. Likewise 47/8 and 47/7 are the same as 47/4, and in the case of modern DMUs (e.g. class 170), there are only different subclasses as each operator wanted to its own subclass.

Overall it may just be better to have subheadings for each subclass (as i have done on the class 317 article). The exception being the departmental class 97, which should have separate articles for the purpose-built locos. What are your views? Our Phellap 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA comment

Hello. Your comment in Sam Spade's RfA is simply not OK. Please withdraw it. Jonathunder 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I came here for exactly the same reason. Whatever your disagreements, such a comment is simply not called for, and unbefitting a long-standing admin. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mr Harris, please no!

Hey, please don't leave that information public on-wiki like that. Could you remove it again please? Kim Bruning 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(that and an RFC is not appropriate at this point in time, Slimvirgin has offered to mediate) Kim Bruning 15:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that you shouldn't be wheel warring over an RfC in which you are commenting. I'm going to have to block you for three hours over this: the block and the dispute are noted at WP:AN. Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

An RFC is perfectly appropriate considering the Agapetos angel (talk • contribs • angel page moves • block user • angel block log)'s disruptive behaviour. — Dunc|☺ 15:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

An RFC is not appropriate if there is a mediator Kim Bruning 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to the arbcom. We've exhausted all the normal channels. — Dunc|☺ 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a mediator present now. But if you'd like to take this to arbitration, you may of course do so, at your option :-) In other news; thank you very much for applying common sense! Kim Bruning 16:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems like poor timing to start an Rfc at the time she agrees to work with SlimVirgin. Why not give that a chance? If this elevates to Rfa, the actions of everyone involved with the case will be examined. IMO, this is playing with fire! FloNight ^talk 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. you've restored the RFC. Why? Kim Bruning 03:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that due to the sensitivity of this information, please leave deleted while we discuss. We can always undelete, but we can't undisseminate. Kim Bruning 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and requesting an injuntion here not nescesarily against you, but you're listed I guess: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Req._Emergency_injunction_on_posting_personal_info., possibly you've already stopped though. I hope so! Kim Bruning 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock issues

What is wrong with asking a user to review a rule they obviously don't understand and have misused to cause another user considerable grief? I've asked him directly and he ignores me - treating me like a hysterical nuisance so I have had to resort to asking other people (directly involve in one way or another) to also ask. SOPHIA 21:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAITH works both ways - as for WP:COOL - with resepect one day you may be cast under suspicion as an editor by the rash assumptions of others - it will be ineresting to see how you feel then. As far as I'm concerned I have not contacted anyone not directly involved in this incident and am confused as to why you are making comments (I also suspect you may not know all the history to this but I'll assume WP:FAITH). SOPHIA 09:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

schools class

Hello, thanks for comment. I found a reference which stated 5, which is why I changed it. However, I had already come to the conclusion that there were only three while i was trying to find out where they were. I had even started an edit to alter it, but unfortunately this computer has started acting up, and zap.... Sandpiper 19:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As to stowe, or any other photo, if you have a better one then please do upload it. That's what I do. Sandpiper 23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems with wiki is that it is terribly badly organised. I started this from the POV of having a big pile of photos, taken by someone else, but for which I have the copyright available, some of which might be interesting enough to include. So I looked up trains. Didn't find anyhting on STOWE, so stuck it in (after finding out what it was a picture of). Found the article on 440, nothing about UK trains, so stuck it in. Even read the project page, which says 440 is the master page to look up 440 trains, and their was NOTHING about Uk trains. OK, I found some stuff later, but how does anyone coming to wiki know there is more when the page tells you where it should be, but it is somewhere else. Now you are suggesting I try looking under commons instead of pedia?

Gripe over, not your fault. But it is a right mess for anyone who wants to learn about trains. Obviously the 440 etc articles have been written by people who know about US trains. If they are going to be a starting point for looking things up, that idea seems sensible to me, but they are obviously going to need a lot of rewriting. I would not like to see the 440 articles degenerate simply into lists, but they need to have a bigger spread of information. I don't know enough about what is here to say how much in the separate articles is repetition and could be incorporated into larger articles. I think stuff like the detail on Stowe belongs in the separate article, but the generic description of classes, locomotive performance, and how they fit together and compare does not. Should each category show the wheel numbered article as its main article for information about all its entries? Sandpiper 12:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

hello again, same title but slightly different tack. I see you moved the pictures down the page. The reason I moved them up is because on my screen, the way you have it, I see two pictures at the top, a great big white space down the right side of the big table, then three more pictures right at the bottom. The way I left it, i saw all the pictures lined up down the right hand side, with the table on their left (except for the dodgy cheltenham pic, which I left at the bottom because of its odd label). So I put the pics to the top to make it look better. Sandpiper 20:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Photos in service go at the top; photos in preservation under the preservation section. It's an accuracy issue. — Dunc|☺ 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

you're saying that engines which still exist dont count as members of the original class? Sandpiper 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Where possible, use photos of engines in service. Preserved engines often have detail differences, and contradictions e.g. between the livery they're in and their condition. — Dunc|☺ 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

They also have colour photos which means people can actually see what that particular livery really looked like, instead of being grey. But I am still objecting to the article looking bad bacause it has a big white space on the right of an enormous blank table towards the top, and a big white space bottom left of the low photos. Presentation is bad. Sandpiper 21:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Repton/cheltenham

I'm totally lost about your comment on the picture of cheltenham/ repton. Which train is it a picture of, or put it another way, why do you say it is not the train whose number it is displaying? Sandpiper 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Patriot 5529 - 45529

Hello and many thanks for the information. I have J.Pikes book 'Locomotive Names' and see her there now. I also have Chris Bank's book "British Railways Locomotives 1948", but this only shows her as a numbered engine, which I find strange. The reason for my enquiry was that I noticed a picture in a book which shows her after being involved in a crash, lying on her side. I can see no reference to this crash anywhere other than the picture. Many thanks again for your information. Regards Paul Lane.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Spezial:Watchlist deleted

Hi, you deleted the above article, as far as I can see without preceding discussion (but maybe I'm just too stupid to find it, and I've lost the overview over the development of deletetion reform). The reason for that page was that it made it very convenient for users of some other language Wikipedias, German for instance, to switch between the German (or whatever language) and the English Wikipedia. I don't think the redirect makes any problems, hence I'd appreciate if it could be restored. -- H005 17:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please no vandalism

Duncharris,

Please do not vandalize. If you want to practice use the sandbox. --Joy Crawford 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing unexplained and unwarranted {{NPOV}} tags is not vandalism. — Dunc|☺ 14:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. 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. TigerShark 20:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou, I know what the 3RR is and that certain edits there against consensus. It's been discussed before, at length. RTF talk page. — Dunc|☺ 20:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you stop editing pages without consensus, adding deliberately misleading explanations Asterion 15:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

ID is not an offshoot of creationism

You seem confused about creationism and intelligent design. ID does not deny macroevolution; creationism does. Furthermore, you apparently do not realize that 'creationism' includes both young-earth and old-earth creationists, whereas the vast majority of ID theorists accept an old earth. ID also leaves open the question of who the designer is, unlike creationism, whether Christian or Muslim.

Furthermore, ID is not an offshoot of creationism. ID is rooted in the teleological argument, whereas creationism is rooted in revelation, whether through the Koran, Bible, or another holy book. This makes creationism and ID mutually exclusive on philosophical merits; one cannot be an offshoot of the other. Furthermore, the prominent proponents of ID, although often Christian, were never originally creationists. Therefore, calling ID an 'offshoot' of creationism is deceptive---besides being philosophically impossible.

Hope that helps.

edit: Sorry, this is in reference to the 'Eugenie Scott' entry.

But intelligent design creationism is creationism. — Dunc|☺ 11:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk.origins is not NPOV---they are blatantly anti-creationist, anti-ID. My points stand, irregardless of whether the Eugenie Scott article is spreading misinformation. You will need to refute the points I made if you hope to actually establish your position as accurate. Sorry, that's just how knowledge works. :/

Looking over the link, their response is pathetic anyway---half their points are totally irrelevant, the other half only prove that they have an evolutionary presupposition. So maybe you can do better?

You obviously don't agree with WP:NPOV#pseudoscience then... — Dunc|☺ 22:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice red herring. The issue here isn't whether ID or creationism or evolution are science, but whether they belong in the same philosophical family. The only similarity between ID and creationism is teleology. Claiming that this is the core criteria of creationism is laughable. No knowledgable ID theorist calls himself a creationist, and no knowledgable creationist calls himself an ID theorist. (http://www.y-origins.com/, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp) Ironically, you'd be more just in calling ID 'evolution' since macroevolution and long ages of time are accepted by most ID theorists. (Actually, virtually all ID theorists accept long ages.) In other words, using extremely vague criteria inevitably cuts both ways, which is why any responsible thinker would recognize evolution, creationism, and ID as a trichotomy.

Still waiting for a real response... not comfortable with your misconceptions being challenged? Razzendahcuben 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm fine. I just don't feed trolls or get into arguments with people whose views are so patently absurd that no amount of evidence will convince them. — Dunc|☺ 14:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Trolling is deliberating posting false or provoking information for the sake of arguing. I, on other hand, soundly refuted your misconceptions---therefore the Eugenie Scott article should be changed to accurately reflect the dichotomy between ID and creationism. The fact that you can't provide a real response to my charges is very telling of the incompetence of either yourself or the position you seem incapable of defending. Razzendahcuben 18:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Razzendahcuben, be civil, please. Oh and btw, ID is creationism. Who do you think the designer was? A creator of new designs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I appear uncivil, but I think 'incompetent' is very accurate word to described Duncharris in the above discussion, no? I guess I'm disturbed that Wikipedia calls these pages 'discussions', when Duncharris refuses to discuss the issue. Even more disturbing is the thought that these 'discussions' are how consensus is built. Wikipedia may not Wikipedia is a beautiful examplePure democracy is majority rule, regardless of whether the majority is correct.

Also, your comment is very uninformed. Calling ID creationism completely neglects the serious differences between creationism and ID, which far outweigh the similarities. I already explained all this, but I'll do it again.

1. The ONLY similarity between ID and creationism is teleology. ID isn't even necessarily theistic, which is already a very, very, very low common denominator. After all, who is the Creator? How do we know there weren't Creators (plural)? What if the 'designer' isn't outside of the cosmos at all, as pantheism and transcendentalism teach? We don't know anything about this creator. We could be talking about a deistic god who started the ball rolling and then left. We could be talking about mystical, existential 'New Age' forces at work. We could be talking about Allah. ID so vague that it cannot point to one of these any more than it can point to another.

2. ID is not creationism because is far too specific. As any creationist will tell you, creationism is based on special revelation---something that ID NEVER can or will provide. Creationism makes specific claims to who the God(s) is and who S/he is. This knowledge is based on revelation. THIS IS CREATIONISM. This is how creationism is defined, period. ID, however, is only a teleological argument, which is a rational argument for the existence of a designer. THIS IS NOT REVELATION. This is rationalism. Furthermore, no ID theorist calls himself a creationist and no creationist calls himself an ID theorist. I already gave examples. http://www.y-origins.com/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp

To point out the absurdity of calling ID creationism or vice versa, let me use some examples. "Jane is rational, therefore she is a rationalist." "My airplane has wheels, an engine, and a windshield, therefore it is a car." "I frequently visit Chinatown in San Francisco and even speak Mandarin Chinese, therefore I am Chinese."

And finally, "ID posits that elements of our universe were designed, therefore ID is creationism."

Hopefully you have enough training in logical fallacies (or enough common sense of your own) to see why some of these arguments are invalid. The first is probably the most pertinent, however, because it reveals a semantic misunderstanding more than anything else. Being rational doesn't make one a rationalist, though many think otherwise since they share the same root word.

Calling ID creationism is a misusage of terms and an invalid syllogism, pure and simple. So why do evolutionists continue to purposefully confuse the terms? As a smear tactic. They want creationism and ID lumped together because they know that it makes both sides look bad, since neither want to be identified as the other.

3. Now consider the fact that ID theorists almost always accept A.) an old earth and B.) macroevolution. That's not vague at all---those are extremely crucial to evolution! So which does ID have more in common with? Creationism or evolution? :) As I've said repeatedly, you would be far more just in calling ID a subset of evolution than a subset of creationism!

Well, come on, guys... impress me and actually join the discussion---or admit you're wrong. :) Razzendahcuben 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

ID is definitively an offshoot of creationism. This is incontrovertibly established in detail in Forrest and Gross's Creationism's Trojan Horse. "Intelligent design" shares far more than "teleology" with "creation science"; every argument made as an "intelligent design" argument has its precursor in the "creation science" literature. The first systematic use of "intelligent design" as a phrase was shown clearly to mean exactly the same thing as "creation science", as it was switched for that phrase in drafts of the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People (cf. Kitzmiller v. DASD). "Intelligent design" is a subset of "creation science" by content, and by intent was declared to be a sham in the Kitzmiller v. DASD case of 2005. This is all easily verifiable in authoritative sources. Wesley R. Elsberry 20:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

evolution

Hello,

I noticed that a large portion of my addition to the evolution page was removed by you. Was this an incorrect place to post the information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2357 (talk • contribs)

Yes. Thankyou for your edits (and for not being a brainless cretinist troll), and you ought to be bold, but basically, you got it wrong. To quote the opening lines of The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection; "natural selection is not evolution". Evolution requires selection and replication to work in combination. However, selection and replication are different things; either can exist without the other. You basically got this bit confused (it's easily done), and managed to confuse selection with selection plus replication, if you see what I mean. Perhaps see intro to biology FAQ. — Dunc|☺ 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

True. However, i believe it is correct to say, at least when dealing with complex ogranisms, that reproductive success is the result of selection pressures. There are not many situations were gene flow is totaly random. 2357 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the major questions in evolutionary biology -- namely the relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift. The Americans after Sewall Wright general favour GD, whereas the British tend to favour natural selection. I'm with you in the adaptationist camp, though again it is quite subtle. — Dunc|☺ 09:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

evolution 2

right, but natural selection is the theroy by which scientists explain evolution. This was the first comment on my revision. I went on to explain the requirements for a trait to be acted upon by the theroy of natural selection. i guess i should look at the natural selection article if my comments where in the wrong place. 2357 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary forces

Normally, if you don't know what something means, you don't delete it. I have taken out the entire sentence in Hardy-Weinberg principle. It is not needed and is factually incorrect.

Well you clearly don't know what you're talking about so don't do it! — Dunc|☺ 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Blind reversions to incorrect versions does Wikipedia a disservice. If you don't understand the science, ask in the Talk page.

I couldn't have put it better myself, though your technique of self-criticism is quite astounding. — Dunc|☺ 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I see you are more interested in scoring debating points than striving for accuracy. So be it.Ted 23:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:British railway companies

I have reverted your edits to this page, if you object to the renaming you need to place your comments on here to have them considered. However the category name doesnt comply with the Policy. Ian3055 23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

Not sure if you are aware of this, but I think it might interest you. Guettarda 20:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove NPOV tag, there is clearly an unresolved dispute in progress

Please do not remove maintenance notices from articles unless the required changes have been made to the article. If you are uncertain whether the article requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the article's talk page before removing the notice from the article. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. Thank you. Jon Awbrey 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The article (pseudoscience) is fine except for a few POV-pushers. — Dunc|☺ 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)

Hi Dunc, you are a significant contributor to UK railway station articles so I am just making sure you are aware of the proposed naming convention realting to them at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Thryduulf 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Henry_M_Morris.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Henry_M_Morris.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello! If you only have two pages that require disambiguation then you need only mention the other page at the top of the first in order to clear up any user confusion. You really don't need one for Arthur Pease when one of the pages linked is in red. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. — Dunc|☺ 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cardiff Uni?

Hello Duncharris. Are you perchance a student at Cardiff University? I have been trying to find other Prifysgolians on Wikipedia, and it seems that you are one. If I'm mistaken then pls ignore this message. If not, pls reply back. Thanks --Dangherous 21:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not any more. — Dunc|☺ 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know anyone on here who is? --Dangherous 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No.— Dunc|☺ 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

This is just a friendly message to ask you to remember to include edit summaries for you changes - even if they are just minor. Help:Edit summary explains their importance succinctly and clearly. Thryduulf 21:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for abritration has been filed involving you

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Markkbilbo.2C_Harvestdancer.2C_Daycd.2C_Dbiv.2C_WarriorScribe to make a statement. --Ben 12:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Henry Fowler (engineer)

What's up? Why did you revert my adding an image of Sir Henry Fowler? Lupo 16:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It must be a different Sir Henry Fowler; I have some photographs of the engineer and he doesn't look like that. — Dunc|☺ 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :Indeed, I have meanwhile noticed that, too. The engineer appears to have looked differently. Well, I guess I've found him finally: it must be this other Sir Henry Fowler. If you had used an edit summary, the confusion might have been avoided. Lupo 16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Importance

Instead of removing tags you should consider adding material to the article that tells why anybody should care about the individual it talks about. That is what the tag is for. Henning Makholm 16:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If she has done something important, then the article should state what. Until it states what it is a true statement that this information needs to be added. Henning Makholm 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivan Stedeford

Many thanks for formatting the article properly, I appreciate it...N

Renown and Fame

I understand why a link to fame seems appropriate for the disambiguation page renown. However, since fame is itself a disambiguation page, with no article for the dictionary definition of the word, in this case a link is not appropriate. Unless there is an appropriate article, dictionary definitions should not be included on disambiguation pages (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for more information) - that is why there is a link to Wiktionary. This was why I removed it, and wanted to be sure you understood that I was not changing your edits for no reason before I changed it back. -- Natalya 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A. E. Wilder-Smith

What in the article is still an issue? JoshuaZ 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Try reading it. It makes no reference to pseudoscience for a start. — Dunc|☺ 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of changes to Talyllyn Railway

Hi, I was curious why you reverted my changes to Talyllyn Railway? Is there any reason you object to the use of the gauge templates I have created? I have mentioned them on the WikiProjectTrains templates page. Do you think using them on the Talyllyn page is inappropriate? Many thanks, Gwernol 15:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted the change to Talyllyn Railway since you have no objection. I've also started a discussion of the use of gauge templates on the WikiProject Trains talk page. I'd welcome your thoughts on this there. Best, Gwernol 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. Let me explain why I think the templates are a good idea. First reason is to provide a consistent format for gauges across railway articles, in line with the aims of the WikiProject Trains. The second is that it makes it easy to update all the references to a gauge should we decide to change the format. A good example is the 24 gauge: there have beens dispute in the past over whether the metric equivalent is 597mm or 600mm. Until this matter is settled, there are likely to be mini-revert wars over this gauge. At least now we can discuss, decide and easily change all occurences. There are, I suspect, similar debates to be had over whether the preferred format is "2ft (600mm)" or "600mm (2ft)" and is metre gauge "1m" or "1000mm".

I do take your point about server load. This is a classic tradeoff between retaining flexibility at the cost of increased resource use. Agian, perhaps this discussion is best taken to the WikiProject Trains talk page for wider debate by the project? Do I have your permission to move your comments there? Thanks, Gwernol 18:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Stedeford

My grandfather

Stedeford

I don't want to get in a pissing match with you, earlier, you very kindly heped me out by formatting the article properly. The picture belongs to me as a family member of the subject....many thanks

Clive Woodward

Look, what is your problem with bolding "Sir"? Look at other articles about knights - the title is bolded almost every time. Why do you think Woodward should be so different? It is generally accepted that if someone is created a knight or a dame the title effectively becomes part of the name. Unlike ranks and "Dr" it is listed as part of the name in library and archive catalogue authority records, for instance. -- Necrothesp 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

An update: please see here, where you will notice that the "Sir" in a baronet's title should be bolded. A knight or dame uses the same form. -- Necrothesp 16:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Freddie rachel holly.jpg

Hello Duncharris,

This is to let you know that I've removed the {{Promophoto}} tag from the image you uploaded, Image:Freddie rachel holly.jpg, and replaced it with {{No license}}. This means that the image is in danger of being deleted, but my understanding of Template:Promophoto and Wikipedia:Publicity photos is that {{Promophoto}} can only apply to photos which were taken from some sort of press pack. I accept that this could have been a press release photo, which was intended for general distribution, but we really need some evidence of that. I disagree with your assessment that it has no inherent commercial value: pictures of celebrities with their babies are certainly popular and could be sold.

Yours,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like photo that was released to the press to me. — Dunc|☺ 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

removing tags

Instead of removing "notability" tag from Elizabeth Haldane through a revert, you should have explained notability in the article. The article still does not explain her notability. Thanks. --Ragib 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A guide for you:

1. Try to use your brain
2. If you can't do (1) try using Google instead
3. (admittedly (2) requires a little bit of brain use, but still, if you can't manage (2), don't bother at all.)

— Dunc|☺ 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I asked for some facts, and you removed tags without any justification. And your comment above is against WP:NPA. A little decency and logic in edits won't hurt. As for the article, please provide further reason as to why the subject is notable, rather than being outright rude. Thanks. --Ragib 19:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Don't add unneeded tags to articles. It is rude. In this case I'll follow Hanlon's Razor and assume it was stupidity rather than vandalism. 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You add a one liner, and we all are supposed to believe everything you create?? An article needs citations, see WP:V. Make the article better, rather than removing tags at your whim. I am fully justified in adding the notability tag, because the article didn't show anything as to why the subject is notable. Thanks. --Ragib 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And also, your admin rollback button is not for removing notability tags from unreferenced one-liner articles, but you've abused it liberally. I clearly explained my question regarding notability in the talk page, and in edit summaries. If you disagreed, all you had to do was to discuss your position and justification in the article's talk page. And as the original author of the article, it was your duty to provide proof of notability, not my duty to look it up. Thanks. --Ragib 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Thryduulf 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin infobox

Hey, re. the infobox on Darwin's page, are you against infoboxes in general or was the one I used not appropriate? I used the same one that has been used for Carl Friedrich Gauss which as you can see is an FA. I think there should be something more than just a picture in the opening paragraph but I'm open to reasoning otherwise. --darkliight^talk 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks nasty doesn't it? All the information required is already in the first paragraph. There is little point duplicating it, and it seems to be an exercise in using fancy templates. — Dunc|☺ 12:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks much better than a floating image. Also the place of birth and death were not in the introduction. Infoboxes provide a quick reference to core information (be it a person, a company, a place, whatever) for the casual reader, there was plenty of room to add additional information if others saw reason to. Infoboxes certainly have their place in wikipedia as opposed to being an exercise in using fancy templates.

Yes, I think you're awfully clever in using them. But aside from massaging the ego of the terribly intelligent people who use them, what useful purpose do they serve? — Dunc|☺ 12:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you really miss the point or are you just bored?

Sorry, did you make a point? — Dunc|☺ 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh and for someone so clever you can sign your name with four tildes ~~~~ — Dunc|☺ 12:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility?

Dunc, it would be much appreciated if took more care to abide by WP:CIVIL in dealing with editors who make good-faith edits. If you don't like the infobox, discuss it on the article talk page. (I don't care one way or another, but I'd say that Darkliight's argument has some merit and isn't just someone being clever.)

I'm also troubled by the edit war you had with Ragib over the Elizabeth Haldane article. While he shouldn't have escalated to AfD, it would have been best if you hadn't been using your admin rollback to remove the notability tag—and ideal if you had just added an explanation for why the person was notable to the article.

You're usually pretty levelheaded and reasonable. Is there something going on beneath the surface here (socks, etc.)? Can we have the calm, cool, collected Dunc back? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

FRCS

I noticed the FRCS tag you used in the George Buckston Browne article didn't work, which I thought odd. I checked around and it turns out that either "FRCS" itself or "Royal College of Surgeons of England" would get you the desired effect for any future use. I made the correction in the above article. All the best. ---- Bobak 22:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

listing non-famous children

I'm wondering how appropriate it is to list the names of living children of people with entries who are not famous in their own right. In particular I'm thinking of the list of Andrew Huxley's children (two of which btw are wrong).

In general, I would say that a complete biographical entry should definitely list the subject's children. I think that siblings and parents are also worthy of mention. (Mind you, I don't think they should be wikilinked unless they are notable in their own right; such redlinks encourage the creation of permanently stubby articles about nonnotable individuals.) I tend to believe that information about a person's immediate family falls under the heading of useful background.

If there are errors in any particular entry, by all means correct them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, pardon me! I wasn't paying attention to which tab I was in; I thought I was still answering questions over at the Help Desk. Pretend you didn't see me here answering questions on someone else's talk page.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the particular concern is that some children would prefer not to be primarily known as the children of their parents. If the children are dead and buried or famous in their own right that isn't so important but are living children of the moderately famous entitled to some privacy? I happen to know why two entries are in error and I suspect the actual individuals involved would be very unhappy for their correct names to show up. Add in all the places that use mother's maiden name to confirm identity. I agree the info given is public info on the web (it shows up in Andrew Huxley's Nobel bio) but what about cases where wikipedia is the only on-line place for the info? Perhaps I should bring this concern up in a more general arena.

I was trying to see if any of them were notable, though it seems they are not especially so. It possible that you could reduce it to foo sons and bar daughters, per Who's Who. Anyway, a mother's maiden name is far to easy to find out, and if I can do it then a professional identity thief is going to be able to do it as well. In this case it is important because the Huxleys married the Wedgwoods and the Peases, and the children therefore have pedigree, though they do not seem otherwise notable. — Dunc|☺ 09:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cemcem a sockpuppet?

It is possible that Cemcem is a sockpuppet of Kayaakyuz, but what makes you so sure? I think it is not hard to find hundreds of readers who think just alike, not because they are sock or meat puppets, but because they have been brainwashed by the same propaganda. Likewise for the other side. Lambiam^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll get an IP check if you lik. — Dunc|☺ 17:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is your call – I have no stake in the issue – but I'm still somewhat amazed at the lightness with which you blocked this user. From the evidence I have, it is entirely possible that you bit a newbie who did not understand the rules of the game and thought he (I guess this user is male since his name is) was arguing rather than voting (and, at least officially, the contributions to AfD pages are supposed to be argued recommendations, not votes). In fact, seeing what Cemcem was doing, my assumption was that he was just such a newbie, and I actually was in the process of editing his comments to something acceptable when the mini revert war erupted. In any case, user Cemcem has requested an unblock, protesting your allegation and quick judgement. Lambiam^Talk 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not start changing country details on train operator articles.

Why have you started changing the country for Train Operators. Whilst we may disagree that the TOC template is to list companies that run trains in the UK or GB regarding which system they are part of the actual articles themselves are about train operators that run services in the country of the United Kingdom. There has been no country of Great Britain since 1801, merely the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland. A company that runs trains around London is an operator of trains in the UK or England, not GB. It is that same as any other company which provides a service, whilst it may be based in a certain area such as South Wales, North-East England or Northern Ireland it is still a UK company. Yes the railways of NI are part of a seperately run system but NIR is still a UK company, if you were to say that NIR is a Northern Ireland company then First Capital Connect is an English company but certainly not a GB company.

There is a movement within Wikipedia as part of the clean-up and improvement drive to replace erronious Great Britain entries relating to after 1801 to be replace with either the correct UK or one of the constituent members of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland). To start introducing and using misleading terms such as this intro TOC articles is going against that movement and is simply adding to the problem.

If you've like to see things changed I suggest you start a discussion at the new Wikiproject for UK-based railways which is there for exactly this type of issue, but please do not start changing things without explaining your reasonings. --Achmelvic 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no UK railway system. There is consensus and there has been for a few years that GB & Ireland are separate. Get over it. — Dunc|☺ 19:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The ISLANDS of Great Britain and Ireland are indeed seperate and the railway systems may be seperate to an extent but a company that provides any service, not just a train service, that is based in one region is still a UK company no matter how you look at it. What I've said above still stands, Great Britain is not a country where companys operate. The collection of islands off the north-west coast of continental Europe is made up of hundreds of islands upon which the two main soverign states are the United Kingdom (made up of the 4 four constituent states) and Republic of Ireland, not to mention situations such as the Isle of Man. There is no "consensus" here, a company running in England is a UK company. I repeat Great Britain is not a country and to start changing article to suggest it is goes against the general direction of articles on Wikipedia. --Achmelvic 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain is an island with its own railway network, separate from those of other islands. The only complaint is that this is Great Britain in the political sense including the Isle of Wight, which is not connected to the main network but similarly regulated, and Anglesey and Holy Island which are islands but are connected to the main network. However, that distinction is probabably bit subtle for you, given your apparent knowledge of railways you've demonstrated so far. — Dunc|☺ 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to start making personnal attacks now? I see you've been warned about that in the past. Have I done something that major to annoy you?

I know exactly what the situation is with relation to how the railway systems of Great Britain and Ireland are structured and have followed developments in both railway systems for more than 15 years. It appears to be yourself who is not actually reading the points I'm making above, that an company which provides service in England is a provider of service in the UK. Yes articles relating to the wider nature of said systems may be structured in a certain way but that does not excuse the fact that a company which is own in the UK and provides train services in the UK is a UK company, the article in question is about a certain company not the wider railway system. --Achmelvic 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You want the last say do you? — Dunc|☺ 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Irish Question

You may be aware that there has recently been a dispute about whether the {{British TOCs}} template should include Northern Irish train operators. In order to gain consensus and move forward there is currently a discussion about whether the scope of the template should be Great Britain or the United Kingdom. You have previously commented on this tempate but have not yet made any remarks in the latest discussion. If you would like to express your opinion please do so at Template talk:British TOCs#The Irish Question - What is the scope of this template?. Thryduulf 21:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Adrian Knatchbull-Hugessen

Removing deadlinks is not vandalism. As you can see, my edits -- fixing links, removing date fragment links per WP:MOSNUM, copyedits -- were clearly intended to improve the article. Save the accusation of vandalism for vandals, not constructive editors. Please review the Wikipedia official policy on civility. I think that you have forgotten its importance. Ground Zero | t 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You responded on my talk page: "Please don't remove redlinks from articles, they are there for a purpose. Removal of them might be considered vandalism. — Dunc|☺ 22:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)"

No, removal of redlinks may not be considered to be vandalism. Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism. Removing redlinks is not listed there as an example of what vandalism is. It does say, however:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

As I have indicated, my edits were unquestionably in good faith. Your accusation of vandalism is a violation of the Wikipedia policy on No personal attacks. I ask you for an apology, and that you be more civil in the future. Ground Zero | t 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Example

Um..., In case you did'nt notice, this guy isn't a real user. The Republican 20:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

None was named/None were named - Ivatt 2-6-0 Article

Surely you say 'None were named', rather than 'None was named' - as in, 'None of these engines were named' - None was named is not somethign I have ever heard before... HawkerTyphoon 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

None = "no one" = singular. Guettarda 22:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

None doesn't always have to be singular, it used to be taught like that, but it's not anymore. It can mean 'Not any of' - see the talk page in the article for details! HawkerTyphoon 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Duncharris - PLEASE either reply on my talk page, this talk page, or ideally on the talk page for the article, before reverting my edits. HawkerTyphoon 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Insisting on including uncited information

Can you tell me why you insist to include uncited information at TalkOrigins_Archive? I moved the uncited parts to the talk page and you reverted without a word. --Hugo the Hippo 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the talk page now. The information can be verified easily. Wesley R. Elsberry 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd got it covered though. — Dunc|☺ 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Andover and Andover (disambiguation)

I'm curious about your decision to move these two again. I'll iterate what Jfg284 said:

Currently, Andover, Hampshire redirects to Andover and the disambiguation page is located at Andover (disambiguation). This does not seem to meet the page naming guidelines, which state that "...where there is no...consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself..." If you do a google search of "Andover", the first page of results contains a whole plethora of references to towns called "Andover" in Massachussets, Kansas, Minnesota, and Hampshire, as well as a college in Maine, two software websites, the Andover, MA town newspaper, "The Andover Shop" and Phillips Academy Andover. In short, there's nothing to suggest that Andover, Hampshire is the dominant use of "Andover," and thusly And though i know Google is not the authority on the subject, i think the results are quite telling: no single usage dominates. I propose a move of Andover (disambiguation) Andover and a move of Andover to one of the above mentioned specific sites. Agreement? Disagreement? Thoughts in general?jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 00:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, I can't seem to find anywhere where it says, as you claims, that "oldest takes precedence". And I looked in both Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Can you point me to where you found this policy? (Respond here, if you don't mind...my IP changes daily so I won't get the message template.) 82.82.183.57 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The original has precedence as far as naming goes. e.g. Andover in the state of foo are always referred to as Andover, foo whereas Andover in Hampshire, the original is simply Andover. Hope that clears up things. — Dunc|☺ 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't entirely clear it up. As noted above, the only policy i could find was "...where there is no...consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself...". Where is it said that the original has precidence? 82.82.189.51 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

.......82.83.56.192 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fotopic.net

Hi Duncharris, I see you've removed my advertisement tag from fotopic.net. Is there any way we could edit this article to be a little less gushing, or to establish notability for this website? Please respond on my talkpage, thanks for your time. GeorgeBills 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Leave it, it fine. What is it supposed to include? Can you source any criticisms? — Dunc|☺ 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I see

Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. You're tired of discussion, so you simply take unilateral action, without even bothering to ask other people who even share your view whether they think it is acceptable. As far as I can make out, no one else seems to think my "crusade" is tiresome, as no one has said so to me. It seems to me that sums up your character on this issue. If I'm wrong, go ahead and sue me. Hammersfan 27/04/06, 09.35 BST

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel closed

This arbitration case has closed. Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind Discussion

Hey Dunc, thanks for your message...have left you a response on my page, hope you take a look and enter into discussion on Hovind Page. Cheers PappaG 17:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris Johnson

Since Chris L. Johnson is the only person on the disambiguation page to have an article, the name "Chris Johnson" should redirect to his article, rather than a disambiguation page over-filled with redlinks. If people are searching for the name Chris Johnson, they will find no other article than that of Chris L. Johnson. Therefore, the redirect of "Chris Johnson" should go to his page, with the top of his page having a link to the disambiguation page. (Notorious4life 17:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

No, see special:whatlinkshere/Chris Johnson. You'll have to do better than that to persuade me that he is the most notable Chris Johnson by some distance. — Dunc|☺ 18:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I checked the links from whatlinkshere, and many of them were incorrect links, such as Chris Johnson (golfer), who is actually named Christa Johnson. When I relinked many of the Chris Johnson links to their specified person, behold redlinks. The only Chris Johnson with a valid article is Chris L. Johnson. It's improper to have a link redirect to the disambiguation page in the situation of dealing with a specific person. So, if you're not convinced at the more notable Chris L. Johnson, try to find another article from a person named Chris Johnson. (Notorious4life 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

• If you don't respond soon, I will revert the information as I have stated.

Kent Hovind NPOV

I don't think anyone wants to see a reversion war concerning the POV dispute tag on Kent Hovind. Given the flurry on the talk page there seems to be reason for it. If you would like to argue otherwise (and if you feel strongly you should certainly do so) please address the issue on said talk page and don't go straight to the page. Thanks. KEM 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bailiff.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bailiff.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

British TOCs

I have found your recent conduct relating to this template leaving a great deal to be desired. Edit warring, ignoring consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, unilatterally closing the discussion when there was no consensus on the talk page, editing it while protected, and latest of all reverting a good-faith contribution with the vandal roll-back tool and without discussion on the talk page. Unless I see a significant improvement in your behaviour, starting now, then I will be filing an RfC against you. Thryduulf 21:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted hammersfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s vandalism, which is against consensus (and I do note you agree with me, btw), the most recent involved forking the template to template:UK TOCs, in order to get round the block. If however, consensus is reached that there is a "UK network", change it back, but until then, it is worth following a more logical approach. I'm willing to talk. — Dunc|☺ 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a UK network has never been an issue. The issue is whether the template should show operators of the Irish network AND British network or just the latter. I agree that Hammersfan's changes did not have consensus (they should have been proposed on talk), but it was not vandalism and so the rollback was inapropriate. It should not have been you who reverted the changes, given your extensive history with the template (especially editing it while protected), and an edit summary should have been used to explain why it was being reverted, backed up with a comment on the talk page. Thryduulf 20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Falklands Islands

The problem of the matter is that here you have a biased account of the event, and a poorly reasoned article by the original contributor who appears unaware of the implications of the primary documentation (i.e. Sturdee's report to the Admiralty). I will show you what I mean with text changes supported by this primary documentation and I hope you like the result.

Geoffrey Brooks

Yes, I would be looking for a modern documentary source from a reliable academic, i.e. no conspiracy theories please (though they might be worth mentioning as an aside). — Dunc|☺ 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Falkland Islands 1914

I have to give the devil his due. I have recast the amendment to the article, and I think this is now what actually occurred. I feel certain that Argentina was involved.

Intelligence officers are in the business of deception, and it is not beyond the bounds of belief that it served some mysterious purpose of British intelligence to suggest that that they were repsonsible for organising the "trap" into which Admiral von Spee sailed.

Admiral Sturdee, an incompetent cad, was obviously not entrusted with information that he was to expect to meet the German squadron on 8 December, and one would have thought that he would have been given at least some kind of nod and wink to be on his guard. Furthermore, the date when Room 40 broke the German naval operational code and the involved procedure of getting a falsified cable to Valparaiso after doing so, leave little if any time for this to have been achieved, and may not have been possible.

Accordingly your intervention in the original article has paid dividends.

Geoffrey Brooks

Please don't violate WP:CIVIL in edit summaries.

Please don't violate WP:CIVIL in edit summaries. Thanks. — goethean ॐ 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I always believed WP:NPOV was more important, and if you want to ignore that, well, who says I can't have a bit of fun? — Dunc|☺ 12:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Lady Hope

It`s very important you no delete the reference on The Watchman Examiner in the article on Hope. The Watchman NEVER PUBLISED THAT HOAX.

What is the issue?

Could you please explain why my edits are not allowed? I posted a link on Stephen C. Meyer's page regarding the Richard Sternberg controversy and it was promptly removed. What "vandalizing" are you speaking of? If you mean trying to portray both side of a story or issue in a fair and balanced way...then yes, shoot me...I'm guilty.

NO TRASH THE WATCHMAN EXAMINER PLEASE!

Please as an Expert in American Baptist History,I demand you to be serious,and cease to delete the reference to REAL article in Watchman Examiner in the article on Lady Hope.

Hello Duncharris

I fail to see what jollies you get from sabotaging articles on wikiepedia but then its been a long time since I was eleven years old.

With regard to the article on Martin Johnson this is my second posting to discuss the issue with you rationally like adults (that means grown ups). Any reasonable reader with knowledge of the issue will agree that the issue has been neutrally reported. Now you can continue to make rasist statements about 'Irish Whinging' but it doesnt change the actual facts.

I am required to discuss this with you before escallating this to get you blocked....so what is your excuse for racism Adam777 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

British Railways Class 45 peaks

Hi there,

Can I ask why you reverted back to an old version of this page, without giving a reason?

Cheers

MediaWiki:Nogomatch

MediaWiki:Nogomatch seems to have broken, and you were the last one to touch it ;) See MediaWiki talk:Nogomatch, any ideas? Stevage 13:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It was broken so I reverted one to see if it affected it. It's still not working. — Dunc|☺ 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:AIDS dissidents

You really ought to abandon your crusade to label all these with Category:Pseudoscientists. It's misguided and wrong on many levels, and in most cases simply not true. Let's talk about it perhaps - but stop reverting everyone over there. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's pseudoscience, don't be so bloody silly. As for me taking unilateral action, you can see from category talk:AIDS dissidents that that is not the case. — Dunc|☺ 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardly pseudoscience exactly, and besides, unilateral action is not what Wikipedia is about, Duncharris. You should know that. HawkerTyphoon

British Rail Class 334

Thanks for sorting out the wee photo I added to British Rail Class 334. It may interest you that I also took another picture of one, as well as the following unidentified sort of train on the line Image:Gourock train.jpg, a more distant view at Image:Fort Matilda station.jpg and (just visible!) at Image:Gourock pierhead.jpg. It'll be great if you can identify these, which were taken to illustrate the Inverclyde Line pages. Ta, ...dave souza, talk 22:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they're probably British Rail Class 318s — Dunc|☺ 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, looks pretty similar but that article uses the past tense about their use on the Inverclyde line. I'll leave it with you enthusiasts to sort, and will try to get a closer picture next time the weather's suitable. ..dave souza, talk 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Right enough, it wasn't till looking close up that the numbering registered: see Talk:British Rail Class 318 and British Rail Class 314. ..dave souza, talk 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College

Please do not remove information from this article. Aplomado ^talk 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why are you continually reverting these edits and not discussing them on the talk page? Aplomado ^talk 23:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy / Rudolf Steiner / Waldorf Schools

These sites have all been infested with the circular logic of believers (anthroposophists). Anthroposophy is just as..."eccentric"... as scientology, but the main difference is that Anthroposophy has its own school system -- and its the fastest growing private school system in the country.

Image Tagging for Image:Paul_Keetch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul_Keetch.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI

[3] He seems new, give this a try first. Guettarda 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ayalon Cave

Hi there,

I saw that you are member of the WikiProject_Evolutionary_biology. I just stumbled upon this article about a new cave (called Ayalon Cave) where some newly discovered species have apparently lived for about 5 million years without contact to the outside. I am no expert in these matters, but you might want to take a look at http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/dovrut_search_eng.pl?mesge114907691205976587

Cheers, --Jpkoester1 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The res3ia Enigma

Can you enlighten me as to why you consider this item nonsense ?

science_watch

Sir

That's how we format it. Please stop incorrectly changing it. Proteus (Talk) 22:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The MoS? This MoS? Proteus (Talk) 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For the love of God, you can't refer to the MoS without reading it, change it unilaterally because it doesn't say what you want it to say, and then use your edited version as a rationale for editing. What the hell do you think you're playing at? Proteus (Talk) 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this barmy idea that only people's first names are bolded? Peerages are always bolded, for instance, and I doubt any life peer's mother called him by his peerage (to use the criterion you seem to have invented for bolding names). And yes, "Sir" is part of a knight's name. It's certainly always used as part of the name in formal legal documents, unlike your examples of "Professor" and "Doctor". Proteus (Talk) 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to back up Proteus here. People created knights and dames use their pretitles as part of their formal names thenceforward. Doctors and professors do not. No, their mothers didn't call them that. Maybe we should also unbold all the names of people who have changed their names or use other names? I'm sure The Rock's mother didn't call him that either! It's a daft argument, I'm afraid. Please don't make changes like this without discussion. -- Necrothesp 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't plan to discuss the manual of style for something as insignificant as bolding a word or not, but I'd be interested in seeing some references about this "Sir is part of a knight's name" story. Schutz 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at any issue of the London Gazette. Following creation as a knight or dame, the person is always in future described using their pretitle. If John Smith is knighted he is never again referred to as "Mr Smith" (or indeed "Dr Smith", "Professor Smith" etc), but always as "Sir John". The title has become part of his name, just as a peer's does. -- Necrothesp 13:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with Wikipedia? It's a usage issue that reflects a POV. It isn't part of the person's name and more than is His Holiness" or "Her Majesty". To say that he is "Sir John" as opposed to saying he is styled as "Sir John" is to advance a specific monarchist POV. It isn't the same as a nickname - a nickname doesn't say anything about systems of government. A knighthood does. Guettarda 13:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a ludicrous claim. His name is Sir John Smith. What does it have to do with any system of government? It's not the same as "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty" at all - that's an honorific, not a title. There is a big difference. How is it POV to say that someone has been knighted and is therefore henceforward always known as "Sir John Smith"? You may not agree with knighthoods, but that is frankly irrelevant - they exist whether you like it or not, and if someone has one they are entitled to treat it as a part of their name, also whether you like it or not. So you think it's fine to bold a nickname, by which someone is known, but not to bold a title, by which someone is known? I think that only says something about your POV, since it's utterly illogical. But if you don't like it, discuss it on the appropriate talk page. Don't unilaterally change things because you don't like them. -- Necrothesp 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unilaterally = "alone". And monarchism is a POV. Nothing wrong with it. But it's a POV. Guettarda 14:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you have help making that change or discuss it publicly first? No? Then it's unilateral! Yes, monarchism is a POV, just as republicanism is. But in a monarchy, titles that are conferred are real and not POV. I would have thought that was obvious. Is it POV to say that Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom? Of course not. No more so than saying George W Bush is President of the United States. Is it POV to say that John Smith is a knight? No, of course not. He is. It's a fact. That's not POV. Not sure where you're coming from here. -- Necrothesp 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question "did you have help making that change or discuss it publicly first?", yes (you really look silly when you answer your own question, given that your answer is so obviously wrong). You must have missed this, and this, and this, and this, and this, not to mention this, though how you managed, I can't tell. Guettarda 15:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't discuss it here. You made a statement. There is a difference between a statement and a discussion. Rather a large one, in actual fact. Neither did you discuss it on the Ronald Fisher page. Yes, Duncharris has changed it too. So what? I think you'll find that it's you who looks silly by making these ludicrous statements. You have no consensus, nor have you tried to get one. Two people does not a consensus make. As I said, if you don't agree then bring it up in the appropriate place. Don't go round changing things without discussing them. -- Necrothesp 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now raised this on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). You will note that it has already been discussed anyway, without a great deal of objection. -- Necrothesp 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

a

a

Editing policy

I had previously read that. What I don't understand is why you move and hide objective evidece without discussion. Your actions appear close to the Wiki policy on vandelism DLH 13:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes Reverted on "Intelligent Design Page"

Is there a reason you reverted my edit? I changed:

The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation.

TO

The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which argued that, more than the evidence, an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism is at the root of widespread acceptance of Neodarwinism in the scientific community.

This is in fact a more accurate summary of Johnson's principal argument in the book.

You continue to make unwarranted reverts without explanation on the Intelligent Design page. Please explain yourself in the discussion on these edits at Description of Johnson's Darwin on Trial. --Afterall 16:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Newcastle

Hi Duncharris. There was an extended debate from December last year to the end of January this year at Talk:Newcastle that formed consensus for Newcastle to be made a disambiguation page. In April, you converted this generic disambiguation into a primary topic disambiguation with Newcastle upon Tyne as its focus without discussion. As I had archived the previous debate, you may have been oblivious to its result, even though the archive (and the essence of its contents) was indicated on the main talk page. Please do not change the disambiguation again until there is support for such action. Thanks, --cj | talk 07:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins links

Hi Dunc. Just a word about this edit. I was editing the Dawkins articles generally to try to achieve some consistency across them. While I agree that this paticular link is not bad, in general I have found both the Catalano and Simonyi sites to be poor, in terms of numerous broken links, poor presentation, etc. I don't know why Dawkins doesn't fund a decent official site – maybe it's just one more thing. Thanks anyway.—Laurence Boyce 12:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Edward the Blue Engine

Hi there,

On the page Edward the Blue Engine, you changed some terminology, lamenting in your edit summary that fans of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends know nothing about railways.

The fact is that the terminology was in line with that used in both The Railway Series and Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. Your edits regarding "real" engines/prototypes have been maintained (originally information was sourced from series creator Rev W Awdry's publications), and I am trusting that they are accurate.

However, where there is a conflict between real terminology or operations and that from these fictional series, with regards to the characters of the series, the fictional aspect is the more correct for these articles.

Gonzerelli 10:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please put a "freeze" on the Daily Kos site?

It is my understanding that the wiki foundation has been contacted regarding the controversy surrounding what biographical information is appropriate in articles with the blogger known as Armando. There is a revert war happening and I think it would be best to freeze the site with the non-controversial Armando info until the wiki foundation has an opportunity to review.

Why reverting edit on Haldane's Dilemma

Hi!

For some reason you reverted my edit on the Haldane's Dilemma article without giving any reason. Since my edit was simply to add a quote from Haldane's "The Cost of Natural Selection", I cannot see any particular reason for the reversal. Please explain.

best regards

--FreezBee 16:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have reverted your reversal. Note that the my intention with the quote simply is to remind the editors, including myself, that the article will need some revisions. As you can see from the talk page, there are several suggested revisions, and I think we all would like to start work towards a version we all can agree upon. If you disagree with this, please notify on the talk page before doing any reverts, will you?

--FreezBee 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

From FloNight, the Dembski image vandal

Please revert yourself per the discussion on Talk:William A. Dembski#Copyrighted photo or make your case for leaving the image in the article. From FloNight, the Dembski image vandal. [4]

You need to fix the image license. Looks like someone changed it. [5] I'm not going to dispute the image's use but I'll bet you a bottle of KY Bourbon that someone else will. : - ) FloNight talk 18:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

The template that heads this category, which I did not originally put there, is quite accurate. Its appropriateness and applicability is under discussion on the talk page. The template should be removed after consensus has been found...as the template itself specifies.Hgilbert 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, poor wikiquette to remove tag without consensus, and without explaining why in edit summaries. Even worse, you presume bad faith by calling these edits "vandalism" (See WP:VAN), and in that same edit removed an interwiki link to a Russian langauge page without apparent reason (see diff). Your emerging pattern of hostility toward editors who seem to differ with you on pseudoscience is unwarranted. Why not just follow WP:DR and discuss these differences? Also see below, copied from my talk page last night. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's try and be more civil with the pseudoscience edits

Hi Dunc - Yesterday you left this comment on my user talk page:

Do not remove category:pseudoscience from articles which just happen to be your favourite form of "alternative" medicine. Despite the conversation you are having with yourself at category talk:pseudoscience, you have not consensus for such changes. Try to justify such changes at talk:Acupressure and talk:Acupuncture point first. — Dunc|☺ 10:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My reply, cross-posted:

Dunc - Poor Wikiquette on your part here. I gave a specific reason for deleting category:pseudoscience in my edit summary; in response you reverted without explanation. I reverted, saying I'd be happy to discuss, and here you're responding with ad hominem, reverting while again failing to say why you disagree, and (ironically) scolding me about how I need to be discussing my edits. You've been around long enough to have read WP:CIV, Help:Edit summary and WP:DR. If you want consensus, then do your part in working toward it. I'm happy to discuss on the article talk pages (and in fact, the burden of evidence is on editors who want the cat to remain, per WP:V). How about a little civility and reasonable Wikiquette in the meantime? Thanks, and no harm intended.

How about a mutual olive branch here? Cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dunc, can you point out the ad hom? -- I missed it. Was it the part about an acupuncturist supporting acupuncture? ROFL &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that the obvious implication: that my being an acu'ist implies my edits are purely POV, and without validity or substance? Also see here, a clearer example. (Edit: And this, too.) But put aside the ad hominem thing if you like; I think my other points on Wikiquette are entirely reasonable. Happy to discuss the pseudoscience stuff substantively as well, if you're up for it. Cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Duncharris, I hate to jump in here but (no offence intended), you come across as rude and abrupt with your edits and your comments. Please, for the love of all that is good and proper, tone your edits down, and calm down yourself - you're no good to anyone if you're all shouty! HawkerTyphoon 01:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with hawker: don't be a dick. 82.83.59.48 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Attention

Your attention is requested at Armando (Blogger). Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Ronald_Fisher.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ronald_Fisher.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss edits is contrary to WP:DR

Dunc, no matter how hostile you may be to alt-med, you have no right to hold other Wikipedians to a double-standard on Wikipedia policies. Category:Alternative medicine is the third article on which you've twice reverted my removal of Category:Pseudoscience (which included explicit reasons in the edit summary) without explanation. My edit summaries did provide explanation and invite discussion. I discussed my reasons for removing the cat tag on Category talk:Alternative medicine where prior discussion leaned strongly in favor of doing do. Instead of joining the discussion you again simply reverted without explanation[6].

Please follow WP:DR just as the rest of us are obliged to. Please provide useful edit summaries, discuss your edits on the talk page and assume good faith from other editors. Hope you come around on this. Cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, for the record 'n stuff, the "twice" above is inaccurate regarding your second reverts on on the other two articles. You did visit my talk page and suggest that I first seek consensus for those changes[7]. Still, since I'd already given a reason for the edits[8][9], that doesn't exactly illumine the issues at hand, eh? Here's to cool heads, over a virtual pint, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Them disambiguation page

When you made this edit, you (1) restored non-notable items with no associated articles, (2) restored a vanity edit by a high school student, (3) reverted the disambig page to a state where it doesn't conform to Mos:DP, and (4) added irrelevant content about English pronouns which belongs in an article, not a disambig page. Further to all this, you slammed me with a vandalism accusation in your edit summary. I'm reverting you. -- Slowmover 03:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's too much to expect the courtesy of a reply from you. I suggest you read WP:N and Mos:DP. You are overlinking the disambig page and restoring the vanity entry of a high school student (Douthit). However, I have better things to do than argue about it. It looks like I'm not the first editor to have difficulty with you. -- Slowmover 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)