User talk:Heathhunnicutt

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



Hello, Heathhunnicutt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 05:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


Hey, I owe you an apology; you listed that subpage off of User:Example earlier today, and when I removed it, I used the "rollback" button, which we usually only use for vandalism. Since you're a legit user, I feel the need to say "sorry for using rollback instead of a regular revert." If you need any more help, you can find us on IRC (like you did earlier), or ask at my talk page.

And while I'm here:

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 06:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! You were a huge help moving the page for me. The funny thing is, I'm so new I didn't know I could take a roll-back personally! Heathhunnicutt 08:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



Mumps dates[edit]

I'm not link happy, I just did that so the dates are formatted correctly. Thanks for adding them back :) --Joshuagross 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. reviewers don't seem to like it. I follow the rightly dividing (II Timothy 2:15) system of studying the Bible, letting the Bible itself place every verse in context and understanding the different dispensations of God.

I like the idea of converting it to a table too... if you want to post a sample here or on the mumps page I'll help you work on it. --Joshuagross 00:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Im sorry but i could not understand what you were talking about, and thus could not respond Betacommand 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. what is a borg?

When I respond to a comment i do it to there talk page.

please see

thanks Betacommand 00:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaccines and fetal tissue[edit]

The americano centric bias is so strong that the article is in factal error if you live anywhere else. It also reads like a copyvio.Geni 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mumps Vaccine[edit]

Mumps vaccine should point to Jeryl Lynn by all means, but also to Urabe and the old killed vaccine, and to where it is usually found - MMR becoming MMRV. I'm actually quite unused to using brandnames on medicines at all... and certainly the type name (disease + vaccine) should not point directly to a single brand. I don't see a likely way to do all that pointing directly from "mumps vaccine" in an article, and therefore some sort of intermediate page should be there. Call it a disambig page, perhaps, in that it disambiguates "mumps vaccine" into Jeryl Lynn; Urabe; mixtures containing and given and so on. An alternative does the same thing by putting the articles all onto the same page, effectively, but you don't like that approach and there is a tendency to split rather than lump in WP. Another alternative in use elsewhere is to essentially put the page that is mumps vaccine into the top of each separate page on a type of mumps vaccine. My feeling is that that would be a bit more cumbersome and that there is about enough to have a page mainly doing a quick redirection. Midgley 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those are intended. By all means make it more clear that the Mumpsvax can, in the USA, be obtained as a separate preparation. (Mumps vaccine can't currently in the UK - no licenced preparation, and no supplies as far as I know. I think eponymous preparations should include the person - I don't think the lady in question is yet clearly notable enough (or has enough publicly known about her to write a biographical piece) so it would be unreasonable to have a separate page for her - the redirect of the person page to the vaccine page is expedient, and when she and her company become famous it can be decomposed into separate articles. In I'd almost certainly have put in an InterestBox on the person in the article on th vaccine, but they are not fashionable in WP, where all the story tends to be dropped into the page. This conversation probably belongs on the talk page of one or other of the articles - would you like to gather it up for there? Midgley 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I would rather see her picture on her namesake page, too. Why not add it? Heathhunnicutt 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyright. She might possibly offer one though, if she pleases. I used the contact form on the firm to enquire and notify them of the article... Midgley 00:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on the talk page are unWP:CIVIL. Please moderate your attitude. You may wish to consider whether they are actually text you wish to stand, after you read the links from the article itself. Your accusations breach, not for the first time WP:AGF and I suggest that better results come from not doing that. I suggest you nominate a mediator for the Jeryl Lynn article, or we put it up for RFC on the article and get a wider view on how it should go. I don't like the way it is written at present, try reading it aloud ... but I'll leave it for the moment. The redirect may be on of these but I've not used that template. Midgley 01:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Template entry: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I urge you to first consider, and then discuss with some other suitable person (see request for mediation, mentorship, or pick a senior and respected admin or other editor of your choice) whether your various comments around Jeryl Lynn are acceptable. You might care to refactor or sinply remove them. I'm quite tired of the personalised incivility that a proportion of lay people are displaying over vaccine articles - it is an invidious process which does not enhance WP. Midgley 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

removal of merge tag; series of insulting/uncivil edit summaries[edit]

These merge tags I removed were added by you after you removed the delete tag I added. You're like Mr. Pot hanging out with Mr. Kettle, Midgley. Heathhunnicutt 21:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of a merge tag[12] was clearly improper, please do not do so again. I have listed the article, and others, in RFC in order to canvas community opinion on how to structure this area.

Your edit summary[13] was inaccurate, and even more clearly improper. Please either cease doing such things, or present an explanation. (I'd suggest you discuss it with someone if you find this a difficult choice). Midgley 10:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, whatever. You criticize me for such trivia as removing your merge tag attacks, but you have the gall to roll back admin edits that were intended to defuse this dispuate. Heathhunnicutt 17:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions that two articles should be merged are not attacks and should not be taken as them.
Will you seek mediation (I think this is the third or fourth time I've suggested or asked you to involve someone else and take advice) on either the articles, or the dispute you seem to have with me? A rapid reply and action if in the affirmative will be apprecciated. I note that user:Ombudsman has recently joined your name to an ArbComm proceeding[14], I suggest you might want to look at that if you are not already aware of it. If you are aware of it and it is because of a disucssion over a separate channel, I suggest you look at the comapny involved, and consider very carefully whether any advice you might get on how to behave from such quarters is the best and most appropriate for you to follow. Midgley 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
As you already know, I have involved a couple of Admins in our disagreement already (that is, prior to your creation of a mediation request). Their solution was quite fine with me, but you reverted it. I will respond to your RFC in a reasonable amount of time today. As for Ombudsman (talk · contribs), while I disagree with much of the content he has contributed, I agree with the one statement I see he has written which includes my user name. Heathhunnicutt 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't know that. If someone edits I assume they are an editor. If they identify themselves as an admin, fine. But what of it? Admins are editors. Midgley 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It is intriguing that you, who reached out to a coporate PR company in an effort to get off-topic edits into Jeryl Lynn via your new redirect Jeryl Lynn Hilleman, would assume I am in contact with Ombudsman. In fact, I am not in contact with that person, although I am increasingly coming to agree with his views on wikipedia. For the record, I am working alone. I see you and Andrew73 (talk · contribs) usually cooperate against Ombudsman. I meant to stay out of the squabble you all perpetuate. Heathhunnicutt 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You have now three times been corrected on this matter and persist in asserting it. It is false. You are fabricating, and ascribing a motive to me which is unfounded and based upon a wholly unreasonable premise. It makes me wonder whether you are actually the user who insisted upon making a signature appearing to be The Invisible Anon. However, again, what of it? WP is the absolute opposite of secret, and I find it bizarre that you present notifiying someone (through the only available channel, her company) that an article - Jeryl Lynn - (concatenatively) named after her now exists as though there is something wrong with it. Midgley 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You might reasonable restore ANdrew73's remark, that we are not associated, and presumably agree partly because of both having had medical training.

Number of articles[edit]

Some months ago, a discussion took place around the article which then existed on the DPT or DTP (I forget) vaccine. The conclusion of it was that there was no need to have the article, since articles on them existed. The guiding principle from that, whch I think a good one, is that one should avoid excessive multiplication. You are in agreement with Ombudsman on another matter, since he likes to write his anti-vaccinationist article (always esentially the same one) under the heading of each brand name and generic name possible. It is not likely to go onto WP 1.0 I think. Midgley 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if you are paranoid in the technical sense of the word. I am not working with anybody, nor using the other user names you have accused me of. Heathhunnicutt 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My sole reason for dividing the Mumpsvax article from the MMR article is that they are actually different products, avaiable disjointly. Similarly, the Jeryl Lynn strain is not the vaccine but the strain it is made with. They are actually not the same things. Heathhunnicutt 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My edits to most of Ombudsman's pages have been in a vein of toning them down. For example, I removed his links to autism from some project page he operates. I am not an anti-vaccinationist. I am a pro-informationist. People must be encouraged to know what they are being injected with. There is no reason, in this day and age, for blind trust of Physicians like yourself and drug companies (even excellent companies such as Merck). Blind trust is for dummies. What the wikipedia needs is dosage information, contents information, and citations to appropriate publications. Heathhunnicutt 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah... "in agreement with" in British English does not mean that you have met and discussed anything. It means that you both have similar opinions on one specific matter. Is this different in American English? I see that the example of Ombudsman's repeated article has lead you to think I considered you an anti-vaccinationist - not so, it was purely a reference to the multiplication of small articles on overlapping topics, which can be carried far enough to reduce the overall usability of the reference. At the risk of giving an example, Alastair Cooke, American citizen and Englishman who made his bones working for the BBC and other media, wrote that an American would never describe someone as _called_ John Smith, if that was his name, whereas we would. The American would say he was _named_ John Smith_ but might add that he was called Bruce, if that was his usual nickname. Midgley 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Over to you[edit] Midgley 17:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia - good spot[edit]

Good spot :D. I used to think thats how it was spelt for some obscure reason! Cheers  Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

en-WP is an encyclopaedia about things that happen in English speaking countries?[edit]

There is a comment in a tag on Mumps vaccine applied to a mention of the first live mumps vaccine - the Leningrad-3 strain routinely used in Russia and several soviet countries since 1950 which says: "and this is relevant to the en wiki how?"

It might be argued that I have misunderstood the purpose and scope of the encyclopaedia, but my understanding of it is that it is an encyclopaedia written in English[15] about all the things in the world that would usually be regarded as encyclopaedic, in order to be read by and useful to those reading English. Thus, the articles on Japanese culture and French couture will be written in English despite their provenance.

An alternative view, that it is an encyclopaedia presenting only those things that are done in the Anglosphere and taking care to give prominence to the introduction or way of doing something in the Anglosphere over how it was or is done elsewhere seems to me to be less good.

That is why an article on Mumps vaccine should hold an account of how it is done in various places. Midgley 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

When I added that comment tag, the sentence was adjacent to another sentence in the preceding paragraph. The duplicated use of "monovalent mumps vaccine" seems unfortunate in that the lay reader will think all monovalent mumps vaccines are literally the same thing. Therefore, the sentence about Leningrad-3 as a monovalent mumps vaccine was actually obfuscating to the audience. Naturally, the vast majority of the en-wiki audience is from the Anglosphere, and optimizing for relevance to the audience is good.
I agree that the account should remain. You can see that I moved the sentence to its own paragraph in order to disambiguate the two monovalent mumps vaccines in question there. But you throw the noun-phrase "monovalent mumps vaccine" around so much it must be confusing to the audience. In my opinion.
As for your examples including French couture, I am completely struggling to understand why that would be a relevant example in your mind. Even in that article, the material is likely organized in a way that is relevant and useful to the reader.

Heathhunnicutt 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ACPU or SPDU articles[edit]

If you're that interesting in ACPU or SPDU, please, by all means, go write articles on them. Just make sure to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. 1/5 of the citations is more than enough for STS-116, however.--Miguel Cervantes 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The correct solution is to expand references across the article, not to disdain a well-referenced section. Heathhunnicutt 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disdaining the section, I'm merely saying that the focus of the article is on the mission itself, not on the ACPU or SPDU. Yes, it's good that they are referenced, but a point is eventually reached when more citations will take away from the fact being referenced. A link to an article on Wikipedia about those two would be far more helpful to the average reader than poring over seven different sources. I wasn't trying to demean you when I mentioned writing an article; my knowledge is limited in regards to that area, as is, I'm sure, most of the population's. You seem to be either interested in or familiar with these things, and Wikipedia could benefit greatly from your help. --Miguel Cervantes 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Kindly leave my signature as it is.
There you go. See the new Mission Payloads section in the article. If you had read the references, you would have seen the relevance. Your signature seems deliberately misleading and I detest your practice of misrepresenting your username. It prejudices my opinion of you that you would obfuscate your username. Heathhunnicutt 17:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


The so-called retraction is spin. The Wikipedia article says, "this conclusion of the study has been retracted". The title of the so called retraction is "Retraction of an interpretation". There is an enormous difference between someone correcting an interpretation and retracting their own original conclusions. Further, there are a lot of conclusions in the original study that these twelve authors still support.

Did you read the actual retraction? Do a search for "Retraction of an Interpretation" and see how often that punch article title gets used. It's a polite title, don't read too much in to it. Heathhunnicutt 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFM[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia is failing, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Heathhunnicutt -- this is crazy! If you have a disagreement with someone, hash it out for a while longer. I think the suggestion that you write a separate, counter essay and link it from this one is probably the best solution and one that appears to satisfy everybody. Sdedeo (tips) 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sdedeo -- letting such an essay representing Wikipedia on slashdot is crazy! I would ordinarily move slowly, but the damage being done by dishonest conclusions is happening presently. Heathhunnicutt 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia can represent itself -- what I mean is that there will always be a diversity of opinions. There are plenty of "pro-wiki" pages (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections). I think you might be getting a little wrapped up in the argument, which happens to the best of us. I think writing a "response" piece and linking it from the current article is the best solution. Sdedeo (tips) 00:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, but only Worldtraveller's article was featured on slashdot today. Heathhunnicutt 01:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

Info-icon.svg A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia is failing.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Please maintain WP:CIVIL on WP:FAIL[edit]

Your edit summary (no whiny "vandalism box") is inappropriate. Please remember to maintain WP:CIVIL. I know this has been a tough debate on WP:FAIL but maybe instead of changing/reverting WP:FAIL, an alternative would be to strengthen WP:NOTFAIL. Actually, I am thinking both essays should be combined as they both raise important viewpoints. Anyway, don't take anything I am saying to you personally. I'm trying to keep a cool head myself. MetsFan76 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think both essays should be merged. My revert not only removed the huge WP:OWN statement that is not appropriate to wikipedia, it reinstated much of the material that WillowW thoughtfully introduced. The very presence of the "whiny vandalism box" is a ridiculous, asinine claim of ownership against the spirit of WP:OWN. It should go. The vandalism box statement is whiny, weak, and a sign of immaturity. The one thing I like about it is that it is so ugly that prospective users will be driven away, and that is good. Heathhunnicutt 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are you so angry? MetsFan76 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Because one person appointed himself mouthpiece for all of us, me included, and then maintained that point of view to the public in the face of widespread criticism. That's not democratic, fair, or Wikipedia-like. Heathhunnicutt
How does Worldtraveller, writing an article about his beliefs, make him the mouthpiece for all of us? Also, how is WP:NOTFAIL any different? And why should users be driven away from WP:FAIL? It is an interesting article that raises good points. Though I may not totally agree with them, I don't see why other people are having a problem with it. Give the article some time. I'm sure if will develop to include everyone's opinion. In the meantime, anger doesn't help matters. Trust me, I tried it once on here and it doesn't work. Like I said, maybe if you worked on WP:NOTFAIL, you could get your point across better. MetsFan76 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Simple question: between WP:FAIL and WP:NOTFAIL, which of the two was linked to from slashdot? Heathhunnicutt 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter which was linked to slashdot. Because WP:FAIL was linked, does that gives users the right to "pretty up" and dilute the article? If that's the case, then both articles should be merged. However, that still doesn't excuse anyone from being uncivil. MetsFan76 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, both articles should have been merged. When people made the same changes to the original article, there was a revert war and a claim that WP:OWN does not apply to an essay not on a user talk page. I don't particularly feel that I have been uncivil other than in the occassional 'witty' edit summary. In particular, when people are using a disingenuous argument, calling that out is not uncivil, or perhaps it is the required degree of hostility, at least. Heathhunnicutt 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think your arguments were uncivil, I just didn't like the "whiny" comment. Anyway, forget it. Let's just try to work on the article. MetsFan76 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to explain this? (Go Worldtraveller! Fight the balance!!! Your opinion over alle!!! Heathhunnicutt 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC) ) MetsFan76 15:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller continues to make an effort to convert the WP namespace to his personal namespace? That's ridiculous and so the People's Court may find me uncivil. I think it's worthwhile to put his attempts in an appropriately respectful context for that sort of talk on a talk page. Heathhunnicutt 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And are your comments constructive and/or respectful? Honestly, for someone who has only about 700 edits in the past 2 years, you seem to be pretty sure of yourself. If you are not going to be respectful, regardless if you are against the issues at hand, then please refrain from adding to the discussion becuase you are only making yourself look silly and are not helping matters. MetsFan76 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, now you have really put me in my place. Wikipedia needs input from normal people editors who don't consider this place their life. Thousands and thousands of busy people maintain 20-40 pages apiece, and make a much larger impact on WP than all of the "core" editors put together. You're the one who is uncivil, but only in the cool way that WP endorses.Heathhunnicutt 16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Cute edit summary. Maybe you need some time to cool off and grow up. MetsFan76 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

yep, I'm a native Seattleite.[edit]

I'll reply over on the Cascade page. --Lukobe 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bad source for references"[edit]

Hello, I'm Steve Caruso. I noticed that in the article Talpiot Tomb that you removed a link to an article I wrote on the Yeshua` bar Yehosef inscription. I didn't even realize that someone had linked to it until after it was removed (and I'm watching that article closely), but I'm curious as to your reasons. I am a professional Aramaic translator (it has been my vocation for a number of years), so I am wondering why would you consider my work to be a "bad source for references" in accordance to Wikipedia's policies? I have no plans for messing with the link, as it's not in the spirit of Wikipedia to do so, but I must admit that I am a bit baffled. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA)Give Back Our Membership! 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I should have entered a more intelligent comment. The problem I saw was not with your aticle; rather with the statement that claimed your article for a citation. The statement I removed claimed the inscriptions are easily read. Even if you consider them to be so in your opinion, the article would need a couple of references to support the claim that they are easily interpreted inscriptions. Since WP:OWN is bad, what would you suggest as a replacement statement that your article does support? Heathhunnicutt 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. Well the crux of what I had written was that out of all of the inscriptions, the one attributed to Jesus was the most difficult to make out. Where it is possible to get "Yeshua bar Yehosef" (and I outline how it can be done with images), the inscription is open to other interpretations simply due to how bad the handwriting was. Several letters can be read several different ways, the best example of this being the "cross" at the beginning of it that has generally been ignored. Due to its shape it could easily be the Aramaic letter alef, which opens up a number of other possibilities. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA)Give Back Our Membership! 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer link[edit]

The link to that website is already used 21 times in the article as a source. Wikipedia:External links#References and citation, if a website is used as a reference, it is not to be used in the external links section. It has nothing to do with WP:OWN. I am not interested in the article or subject beyond seeing that it does not turn into a shit heap fight fest, like it was when I came across it. If you disagree with my actions, you are always welcome to open a Rfc or post a notice at WP:ANI. Jeffpw 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your interesting post on Zodiac[edit]

seems to assume bad faith on my part, and borders on stalking behaviour. Please remember to comment on the contributions, and not the contributer. Jeffpw 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You think commenting on your past contributions is stalking???? Talk about DRAMA. Heathhunnicutt 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.

so you are invited to apologize, thanks. Heathhunnicutt 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

Info-icon.svg A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ZodiacKillerExternalLinks.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Edits to User talk:Perrydeath[edit]

warning templates are given one at time, not per incident of vandalism. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes or ~~~~. John Reaves (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a policy that says vandalism warnings are given one at a time, not per incident of vandalism? Heathhunnicutt 16:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, keep in mind that intentional vandalism does start at warning level 3. According to WP:VANDAL, you should start at whatever level of warning is appropriate; in this case, that would probably be 3. Meanwhile, using multiple vandal boxes keeps track on that user page of the amount of vandalism performed. Heathhunnicutt 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You can stat at whatever level you like, as long as it is one at a time. The idea is to stop th vandal, not record each incident of vandalism. So once you catch a vandal, you warn them, and then warn them again until your at a final warning or they are blocked. Multiple warnings at once aren't useful. John Reaves (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I deleted the community link as it had the same beginning http addy as the main link, so I figured it was redundant. If you feel it belongs there, by all means, keep it. Jeffpw 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

Info-icon.svg A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ZodiacKillerExternalLinks.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 16:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC).


Thanks for the source link on the Huncote Article, never thought to check a geneology site --Speed Air Man 15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


I got involved in an editorial shitstorm at Epigenetics noticed a familiar name in the edit history. Just wanted to drop in and say hi.  :-) Madeleine 07:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It was nice of you to get involved, although he probably won't respond to it, it doesn't hurt to point things out for the record. :-) I think it's pretty well taken care of, it's just one guy and he really doesn't get the science. I don't think this is a widespread controversy / social phenomenon like the MMR issue. Hope he doesn't see that comparison, it'd give him a sense of legitimacy. :-P Madeleine 14:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NBeale area[edit]

Hi Heathhunnicutt. Thanks for your comment on the starcourse blog post. If there is a consensus that the proper forum for this discussion is on Wikipedia I'll gladly move it there, but I don't see why my views on some aspects of atheism belong in the talk pages on epigenetics! I don't at all mind people disagreeing with me - indeed as I expect you know Massimo P is indeed an atheist - what I do mind is that the rather significant contributions of some major thinkers in this area have been supressed. BTW I don't agree with M about the MMR comparison at all. The MMR stuff ("vaccination causes autism") was clearly wrong, but the claims that "epigenetic inheritance is an important biological mechanism" and "genetic reductionism/determinism are over-simplistic" seem to be non-controversial. And if M. thinks it's "just one guy" she maybe needs to read about Robert Winston NBeale 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
By "just one guy" I meant just one wikipedian pushing a view against a number of more qualified wikipedians on a wikipedia page. Robert Winston is not a molecular biologist or geneticist, his area of expertise lies in medical / fertility issues. He is setting up a "genetic determinism" straw man argument that clearly deviates from the general perceptions of researchers in the field. (Numerous wikipedians have been trying to tell you this on the epigenetics page.) Indeed, these things are not controversial, and the way in which you are pushing them as revolutionary erroneously implies that they are.
Robert Winston + Nicholas Beale != widespread controversy / social phenomenon
Madeleine 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NBeale -- listen, if you want to say 'hi', start another section and don't co-opt another conversation. Regarding the blog post, I think you were in terribly poor form to take your wikipedia problems to a forum you control. The problem with your excitement about epigenetic inheritance is this: you are trying to draw religious conclusions from a relatively minor refinement to the existing theory. Nothing that is new here has discounted the old knowledge about inheritance; we have only gained some new science. Also, nobody here disagrees with you that "epigenetic inheritance is an important biological mechanism" -- in fact that is why people are guarding the quality of the article on epigenetics. However, it is clear that you ascribe more philosophical importance to epigenetic inheritance than is reasonable. Qualified editors object to you drawing connections between epigenetic science and philosophy. To the extent that the topic is one which people such as yourself enjoy, but in that it is not a scientific topic relevant to the article itself, I think you should actually start a new article on the Philosophical Implications of Epigenetic Inheritance. Or maybe you could make it more general and have it cover the Philosophical Implication of Modern Science or whatever. But philosophical musings on creationism and evolution do not belong on an article that should cover simply the science.
If you want some advice about mixing science and theism, here you go: God likes man to pursue science. You can discern this because God gave man intellectual powers and the power of observation. God also likes man to have faith in God. God does not want man to prove God exists or detect him; witness his reaction to those Babel people who wanted to build a God-tall ladder. So God seems to have a dilemma on his hands: ultimately, he wants man to understand all that there is in the universe; however God will not reveal (or allow scientists to measure) his influence. So God's influence on the universe must be something kept out of the view of science. That is certainly easy to imagine for me, and I think for many scientists (not that I am a scientist). However, this view also requires that you accept God's creation as he laid it out for the scientists to discover. Either that, or God allowed evil forces to plant a multiplicity of congruent pieces of evidence that support what scientists discover. Heathhunnicutt 06:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Huncote[edit]

It would seem that you didn't fully read Cabumbo's edits nor my replies, and attacks were directed at me on my talk page, feel free to ignore them but don't expect me too, but hey-ho not to worry. You said -"If Cabumbo is able to provide published references to the drinking and drugs activity, then it should be admissibile here just as any other fact would be" I agree with you and I did actually state that in my replies to this user, again feel free to ignore what I have written. And regarding my user page, all I can say is, please to be understanding satire. Generating an air of superiority? In your opinion maybe, I may disagree but I respect your right to free speech. However, if you are going to leave messages (with an equal air of superiority) then at least check your facts, it makes your arguement a little more solid that way.--The internet is serious business 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, you should reply on the talk page where the conversation was initiated -- in this case, yours. In any case, you cannot ingenuously claim that Cabumbo's writings in the article were both attacks and potentially verifiable. They must be one or the other. Heathhunnicutt 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • the way in which they were written were intended to be disparaging and POV. Like I said in my replies, you can be critical without being nasty For example "Okay, it might only be unloading pallets of crisps into pig swill at the local pig farm, but its a step up from watching Jeremy Kyle in bed with your first spliff of the day before feasting on munchie related Mars bars and Wheat Crunchies. Employment is important for the Huncite, given than transport links are so guff that even those that CAN be bothered to get out of bed have little or no chance of making it to the nearest Job Centre to claim dole money. Again, the Parish Council has been working hard to rectify this, pledging that by 2012, bus services will have increased to one bus every other week."

are you seriously trying to tell me that is not disparaging? You woudln't get that in a printed encyclopedia. Sadly, this kind of NU-snobbery is all to rife in the UK. Human behaviour though, always have to have a "low other" to harras and intimidate. In the UK is quite popular to disparage the socially disadvantaged, as the mudslingers are not allowed to be racist, sexist etc so they move on to those that have no protection. Do we really need to propegate this at wikipedia? Again (for the nth time!) you can present negative facts in a NPOV and non-disparaging fashion. Finnaly, I actually agree with some of what was written (living there myself), I just don't feel the need to use wikipedia as a platform for bile. My actions in reverting are intended to preserve the integerity of the site, wikipedia gets far too much bad press as it is. All I did was revert the edits and I get a dramatic response at my user page, all the Cambumbo needed to do was discuss the matter sensibly, but no, ad hominems were the weapon of choice, a shame...--The internet is serious business 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I seriously think Cabumbo's additions were not disparaging. I think it is possible your POV is interfering, because you live in Huncote. I didn't know my surname came from a village in Leicestershire when I visited that shire, so I have never been to Huncote that I know of. When I read Cabumbo's additions, they certainly are WP:OR and not cited, but, no, I do not find them disparaging. In particular, if they are true, then that's all there is to it; they are true. The bit about wife-swapping could well be made up. Perhaps an issue at play here is that accusing people of wife-swapping and weed-smoking just doesn't sound all that disparaging to Yankee ears. Heathhunnicutt 21:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, wait, I never saw that bit you quoted above. Yes, that is disparaging. Also, that is hilarious. Heathhunnicutt 21:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
and like I said, there are places on the interwebs that will allow that kind of writing, I just don't want to see wikipedia brought into disrepute. I must admit though, I did giggle at the bus service comment, it is truly awful! (one every hour, if it turns up at all) Wife swapping must be more prevalent in your country as not to be disparging (and if that is true I'm definitely visiting your town!) ;-)--The internet is serious business 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that we swap wives that often in the States. But I would say that many people here hold that wife-swapping is the perogative of each married couple. In particular, I am from Seattle, where lots of people hold such libertarian views. If you come visit, I assure you that weed-smoking, at least, can be observed most everywhere on a sunny day.  :) Heathhunnicutt 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Request For Rollback[edit]

I have now added the rollback functionality to you account. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"typical mathean style"[edit]

Hi, good edit, [16] though there are sources which can be added in. Actually my issue is that the words, here are somewhat weaselly, suggesting a particular view of historicity by confusing why he wrote with whether he made it up. Any help there would be appreciated. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the weasel infestation involves the word "typical" which sounds like it belongs in "well, isn't that typical?" I just made an edit that I think fixes it. Let me know what you think! Heathhunnicutt (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)