Jump to content

User talk:Mikker/Archive001

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive
Archives

Lolicon

Please look at WP:3RR. I think the image is ridiculously pornographic too, but it's been discussed and you're in danger of getting banned for edit warring over it. DANGER WILL ROBINSON. Ashibaka tock 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I brought up the image on the Village Pump roughly a year ago, and the consensus was to keep it. But my argument was based only on "this picture is offensive/illegal"-- it had nothing to do with the article context, and now you can see (on the latest talk page additions) I've refined my complaint. If you can make a good case against it feel free to post that on the Village Pump. Ashibaka tock 19:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Leda Cosmides image

It took me a few tries, but there you go..your image has been properly tagged. If you require anymore help, feel free to consult me..and in case I'm not around, take a look at WP:ICT.SoothingR 11:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Panama Canal

Hi, I've responded to the comments you made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panama Canal/archive3, and directly addressed most of them. Want to let me know what you think? Cheers. — Johantheghost 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, but most of all, thanks for diligently picking bugs out of the article! I dunno, it just seems to be so hard to see these little faults when you wrote the text yourself. I wish the peer review process produced this level of feedback, but it seems to be fairly quiet there. Anyhow, all the best for the new year! — Johantheghost 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Philosophy portal

Please read me rationale for removing these templates at User talk:R.Koot#Philosophy portal. Cheers, —Ruud 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

==Charles Darwin Fact/Theory== (descriptive header added by Mikkerpikker 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)) About the charles Darwin article: Thanks for the message. I actually believe that evolution, as described by Darwin is true and quite accurate. However we must concede that many people do not ( i'm thinking religiuos folks: christians, muslims etc) and therefore in their eyes it is not a fact. After over 100 years of debate it is not up to us, suddenly, to decide when we can call the theory of evolution a fact. If it 100% accurate to call evolution as Charles Darwin described it our true natural history than by all means stick with calling evolution. And if we cannot prove it we must stick to theory.

Besides, every other encyclopedia calls it the "theory of evolution." Look around, not a single respectable encylopedia on Charles Darwin call his idea of evolution a fact. We must not contribute to discrediting wikipedia. (unsigned by 82.36.166.26; Mikkerpikker 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Re: Vandals

Thanks for the support! Zsinj 14:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Emperor Wu of Han

I share many of the concerns posted on the fac page. I had previously tagged the article with {copyedit} and asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:China-related_topics_notice_board#Han_Wudi_ready_for_FAC.3F (September) and Wikipedia:Peer review/Emperor Wu of Han/archive1 (October), but I was told to remove the copyedit tag and given the impression that the article was good enough to go. Unfortunately, I don't have the skills to copyedit the article (or I would have done this already) to satisfy Tony's objection. As for adding inline citations, I don't think I can do much about it since User:Nlu wrote the text and I have no idea where he specifically got the facts in the article that need citation. The only thing I can do is to add an additional reference (using that to cross-check the text), but the only thing I have on hand is the Hucker "China's Imperial Past" book which spends only a few pages on the guy (but this is probably enough for our purposes). In the absence of a copyedit (which I don't feel capable of doing), I don't think this fac can stand a chance of passing. --Jiang 02:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I brought it to his attention shortly after the nomination. It looks like he's too busy at the moment to respond...oh well--Jiang 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Top level evolution article

At Talk:Evolution you said:

Well, my main project is evolutionary psychology but I can't very well work on that if the top level evolution article isn't yet acceptable! Mikkerpikker 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That made me think of Evolution (disambiguation) and Evolution (term).

I just added "*Evolutionary psychology proposes that psychology can be better understood in light of evolution." to both.

Perhaps Evolution (term) is the top level evolution article (or could be, or should be) that you had in mind. The Evolution article is strictly about biological evolution.

By the way, I humbly apologize for anything I said that you found inappropriate. WAS 4.250 15:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Structure of evolution article

I don't really care what its structure is so long as it has one. A person should be able to GLANCE at the table of contents and think, oh yeah, that makes sense. Your rough cut fails in having subsections with names way too long for such a glance. I just took a glance, so I have no deeper opinions of it at this point. Now, you've got me interested, so I took a second glance at the table of contents. Remove the words "evolution" and "evolutionary" (as being understood, thus redundant) and the lengths are ok. WAS 4.250 16:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re "White screen" - the back button and the refresh button are your friends here - refresh will often still get the post through, while back will usually get your original text (at least with Firefox) - Guettarda 16:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Humanities, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Williams revolution

Hi Mikkerpikker, just to say thanks for offering to look this term up in "Evolutionary Psycholody: The New Science of the Mind" by David Buss. Look forward to hearing the outcome on Talk:Evolution or Talk:Richard Dawkins. Best, Samsara 13:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski FAC

Hi, many thanks for taking the trouble to read through and provide feedback on Marian Rejewski on FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marian Rejewski). I believe that your points 2, 4 and 5 have been addressed, or at least to to some degree. I tried acting on point 3 as you suggested, but someone changed it back. Is it better to omit the German name for their Navy? I'm not sure if it matters much either way.

I've also tried to reword some of the clumsy wording that you refer to in your first point, or at least, the specific examples you gave. I was wondering if you might help us reword the remaining problematic sentences? I've done some reviewing on FAC, and I realise that even to review an article is hard work, so I understand if you don't have the time or inclination. Still, you'd be very welcome if you wanted to lend a hand.

Thanks again for your comments. — Matt Crypto 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Replied on my talk page. Ben W Bell 12:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

About Darwin

Thanks for the message Mikkerpikker. I don't see why you keep changing it from theory to fact. Would you say Newton established the fact of gravity? Its true, he did explain it, but we don't need to be told that gravity is a fact in his introduction. And so it is the same with calling evolution a fact in the Darwin intro. If evolution is a fact then that statement should be included somewhere in the evoution article. By the way, I've yet to hear any other encyclopedia call evolution a fact (preceding comment unsigned by User:82.36.166.26)

Its a loss for Wikipedia if you ignore writing precise information, actually. I'm not a believer in the creationist theory and nor do I follow a religion, but I know saying that Darwin established the Fact of Evolution is not a precise statement. (preceding comment unsigned by User:82.36.166.26)


Ah, but its you thats calling Evolution a fact, and then surely it up to you to provide more evidence than just what Stephen Jay Gould has to say and other wikipedia articleson Evo. But do read other articles from encyclopedias, type in: Answers, in the google search engine, for instance, and read what they say about Darwin and Evolution.

P.S I do admire you're zealous desire to contribute to the Darwin page. And how come you're going to China? (82.36.166.26 00:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)) from user that talked about darwin before

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karen Dotrice

With a great deal of help from you and several others, I am now convinced this one's ready, and the vote continues. Again, my thanks! RadioKirk talk to me 23:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting! I note your objection; are you aware of something I have yet to find, or include? Please write me. RadioKirk talk to me 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know enough about her to help with what is missing, sorry... Hope you can find material. Think the article is quite good, just fails 2(b). Mikkerpikker ... 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I guess we'll have to disagree; I fully believe I have found everything of import that can be found, absent sending Ned Nalle an e-mail and doing original research. ;) Anyway, thanks so much for your attention, and you have been a big help! RadioKirk talk to me 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Add: I've been able to flesh out "Early life" slightly; "Television" remains all I can find without delving into the irrelevant and trivial. Again, thanks for your input. :) RadioKirk talk to me 02:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
More add: You drive a hard bargain... ;) I think I've fleshed out "Television" while still keeping everything relevant—and brief. RadioKirk talk to me 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Boeremag

Thanks, that's great :) It looks a lot better now. XYaAsehShalomX 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Law of superposition

We get up tight about calling things "Law". Resorting to Law of faunal succession and Law of superposition, is not trying to get around discussing what .. 'The Laws of World Earth' , are about. Those two laws, both sum-up 4.55 Billion years of Earth history. (Faunal succession is obviously, a somewhat shorter time, though it is still back to the bacteria, and the sponge mats(Fossil) in ocean tidal areas.) When the Law of faunal succession gets to more recent times, there are so many interesting creatures, we end up looking at. I am more amazed that the evolution article is so filled up with the Religionists and god stuff. The supreme court is still dealing with it today in 2006 AD. (It wont stop any time soon- Is it really a battle between good and evil?, or more a battle of sanity against insanity?)6.3.55.1 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Asteroid deflection strategies won!

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Asteroid deflection strategies was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

I noticed your page User:Mikkerpikker/Quoxotic WikiQuests: are you aware that

  1. Lolicon is not currently using Template:Linkimage (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Linkimage);
  2. the current version of {{linkimage}} does not allow for a legal warning?

Physchim62 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The old version of Lolicon seems fine: when I said that {{linkimage}} doesn't allow for a legal warning, I meant that there is no possibility of opening a second page with a specific warning. However, when the legal issues are discussed in the same article, the Lolicon solution seems good. I am currently collecting examples of legal warnings on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Legal warnings, to try to convince people that they are not the work of the devil, nor contrary to WP:NLT! Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Leucadendron argenteum.jpeg

Actually, we cannot use this image at all, unless you ask for the permission of SANBI..as their copyright page states "No material from this site may be reproduced on another web site or copied to any other intranet or internet server.". I'm sorry, but this image is a copyright violation...SoothingR 09:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

PPE

I reinstated the link partly as a reaction to the misdescription "linkspam" (which, as it was placed on one article, it can't be, especially as it's not commercial), but also because (as I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:External links) such links can provide details of different approaches to courses which don't really belong in the article but which are nevertheless of use to the reader. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that links to sites in other countries would be better (that's what I did in another article), but I don't have time to find any at the moment. If I get the time, and no-one beats me to it... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your supporting vote on my RfA! I certainly hope it was nonpartisan. Nawww, I know that. :)

edit: Er, I forgot to say, it succeeded 71/1/0, so I'm an admin now! Ashibaka tock 00:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon

It looked like way too much reverting to me. But then, if you're that close to a deal, it'll only need to be protected for a short time, right? Protection is not an endorsement of any certain version. Good luck. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration of course. Just try to talk to one another, avoid petty arguments, don't personalize things and remember that everybody is here for the same basic purpose, to make Wikipedia better. I'll be monitoring the discussion and if it seems like you're approaching a consensus then I'll be happy to unprotect it. Or of course you can always drop me a message. (I like to watch the articles I protect, but sometimes real life gets in the way.) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

stop banning me

u r seriously pissing me off here. i am adding intelligant comedic content to wikipedia you you keep warning me to stop valdilising when its a quality edit. stop or i will kill you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.53.2 (talk • contribs)

I was just jokeing about the kill you part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.53.2 (talk • contribs)

Lolicon

I asked for protection myself, knowing full well that it was reverted to The Wrong Version, because I'm hoping to encourage discussion at Talk:Lolicon. If it's really a big deal, I think it's all good for you to ask at WP:VP now, just link to the two numbered lists on Talk explaining the two positions. Ashibaka tock 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: 2006 Table Mountain fire

Dunno about "good photographer" :) Funny you should mention it; I've already uploaded it to the commons, but haven't added it to the article yet ;) I'll make a plan to go visit Lion's Head sometime (some of the roads were still blocked off last time I tried) and add it as well. dewet|™ 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

155.232.250.19.

Hi Mikkerpikker, thanks for the email, I'd like to let you know it wasn't permanently blocked, but only blocked for 3 hrs. I have now unblocked the address, sorry for any trouble it caused. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your message to 68.104.183.247

Just to let you know I moved it from the user page to the talk page (as it was a message)- I guess you probably meant it to go there anyway (I've made the same mistake on occasion). Petros471 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

PhD in Ev Psche, eh?

Have you looked into human behavioral ecology and/or dual inheritance theory as well? There might be some interesting ideas in these two areas that you can incorporate into your evolutionary psychology research for your PhD. EPM 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's some suggested readings

That should get ya started! EPM 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Thanks for the comments: I've continued the discussion on my user page. ...dave souza, talk 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikker/Archive001&oldid=1139272004"