User talk:TheHerbalGerbil

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Translation[edit]

Salut TheHerbalGerbil,
Merci pour ta proposition !

En quelques mots :
Je suis l'auteur principal de l'article fr:Batailles de Latroun (1948) qui est AdQ (FA) sur la wikipedia francophone.
Depuis une dizaine de mois, j'essaies de le faire traduire vers en:Battles of Latrun.
It is not easy for me because my level in English is not good enough to translate small nuances. I can do the job from "English" to "French" and I understand the nuances but I cannot from "French" to "English" !
Si tu es intéressé par participer, tu es le bienvenu :-)
Merci, Ceedjee (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oui, c'est bon, un menage-a-trois!

Je peut faire francais -> anglais mais ni l'autrefois. Je pense, c'est mieux si les francophones faire les refs etc et je fais la traduction. Il fault also make sure that je n'ai pas mettre les erreurs factuelles.

Excusez-moi mon francais affreux, je peut pas comprendre assez bien mais parce-que je ne utile souvement, je trompe en ecriver.

Peut-etre son avis: J'ai traduit Léon Gard et un francais, le fils du peintre, est tres heureux! C'est bon! Je ne suis pas sur traduire les titres de les oeuvres ou rester en francais? Quest-ce-que vous pensez? SimonTrew (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest we move these discussions onto the talk page of the article itself? It will keep it in one place and also help keep the history of the article (not of the subject, but of the article's creation) all together? SimonTrew (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you use AWB could you maybe scan over the article, only a couple of sections left to do. SimonTrew (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Have finished doing the remaining sections obviously needs someone else to go over it. Doing it oneself, one can't see the meat for the potatoes sometimes.
The next major task is fixing the refs Ceedjee says he will do this at the weekend. SimonTrew (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The cyber-thuggery clouds your judgement[edit]

Your continued incivility at controversial sites like PETA, Homeopathy, 9/11 Truth Movement and others, is unwelcome in the wikicommunity.
It is precisely because of thuggery like yours that wikipedia has evolved into a big joke.
or little joke, really.
a little pond and you just want to be a big fish here in the worst way.
the weird thing is, you have fleeting moments of reasonableness and constructive contributions.
Perhaps you are schizophrenic. Or just a child lashing out when you dont get your way.
its just too bad that your petty bickering trumps the good side.
12.36.128.89 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I’m sorry, have we dated? — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do worry, it's been resolved on the admins incedent board.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi NRen. I have an eerie feeling I once dated someone like that too! (joke) And I thought I had it bad. Sorry you're getting this stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't been proven?[edit]

Your statement, this, at 911Truth, caught my interest?

Except that the official story hasn’t been proven to be full of holes and based on thin evidence.

It catches my interest because it looks like an all-encompassing negative claim about what has not been proven. It makes me wonder how anyone could have arrived at such a conclusion, rationally, without having read all the books and watched documentaries that exist? If you have done so, I wish you had said so on the talk page, to make your comment more credible or understandable. Perhaps you are saying that mainstream media has only begun to identify the holes in the 911 Commission Report. Have you read this NYT article?

NYT Experts urge broader inquiry Government engineers find high temperatures puzzling (and criticize their own investigation) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The investigations already carried out answer the important questions: How and why the towers collapsed. No matter how much you rant and point at puffs of smoke, hot spots and paint chips, it won’t change those answers. Anyway, your article is from December 2001. Maybe you think things have only gotten worse for the “official story” since then? I think they got better. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 05:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rust, aluminum and paint chips ?[edit]

At 911Truth you ask:

Maybe you’d like to explain how finding rust, aluminum and paint chips in a skyscraper collapse supports controlled demolition?

I fail to see how that could be regarded as a serious summary of someone's academic paper, or as someone's view. Anyway, this other paper is probably scientifically less technical, and likely a better starting point for the possible discussion you might welcome.

TITLE Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

QUOTE Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much better than the nanothermite paper. At least not completely ridiculous. But why do you think you need to slam a paper on my desk? Are you trying to force some kind of discussion? Do you really think there’s any discussion to be had other than to have it explained to you for the thousandth time why your conspiracy theories are ridiculous? Look, if you want to question what happened on 9/11, that’s your prerogative. Just don’t browbeat and bullshit the rest of us into going along with you. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 05:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That’s just fucking surreal![edit]

Those are your words at 911Truth, right?

I don't see how that counts as professionally, reasonably, providing information. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t remember being contracted to professionally, reasonably provide information. The information’s already out there. All you need to do is find it. I’m happy to direct people to it if it pleases them. I’m even happier to choose misinformation to smack down at my whim. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 05:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Established truthers[edit]

At 911Truth you claim that certain authors are "established truthers".

To say an author is an "established truther" in itself only raises a possible concern, it doesn't establish that the concern is valid or problemmatic. They are not being paid by government or industry to writer those papers. Remember, in the NYT article, it is government scientists themselves that raise doubts about their study. You are welcome to read the article and share your thoughts. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Working for the government is one thing, but forming your conclusion before you’ve even started an experiment is something else entirely. Jones et al began with the assumption that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and then grasped at straws to find something – anything – that would “prove” controlled demolition. That isn’t academic. It’s not even serious. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The blog regarding reliability of Bentham[edit]

The post you refer to regarding Bentham seems to be on a personal or informal blog. I find it hard to take this seriously as a source regarding Bentham. Now, you might well be able to argue that a certain journal is not prestigious, or has had a flaw of some sort.

But such a case would merely place this journal in the fine company of the NY Times, featuring the likes of Judith Miller and Jason Blair. In other words, reliability needs to look at the context pretty closely. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The author understood people might have trouble taking it seriously, so he made sure to source all the quotations he provided. Of course there will always be some people stupid enough to accept or deny something so quickly. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 05:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Part of the second sentence ("always") is unclear to me, but I'll take the general thrust. What do you mean the author made sure to source all the quotations he provided? When I saw it was a blog I didn't look closely. Are you saying he refers to sources on that page? That info in the discussion would have been useful. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, in a nearby discussion, I can't tell whether a certain comment "Reverse-worked bullshit" was the commenter after you, or part of your comment. I don't assume the page was changed and I must have been mistaken in inferring the signature. So, I have added my correction to show my prior understanding was probably mistaken. Apologies for the confusion. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it to yourself[edit]

When you can heed your own advice about not personalizing disputes and distorting the truth, I'll stop countering your pro-whaling arguments. Until then, keep your hypocritical warnings to yourself. PrBeacon (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Help on Sea Shepherds[edit]

Would you mind, if you see our friend San Jose doing anymore blanket reverts trying to keep the POV alive, undoing those reverts? I'm near my limit with this one and don't want to get tagged myself. Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Change necessary to your monobook.css[edit]

In your monobook.css page, you need to add !important to the .localcomments line, as seen here; this ensures that your custom code will override any of the default settings made by the script. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this edit really necessary?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A87.80.98.196&diff=304330609&oldid=304328550Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, yes. We need to engage these kids in dialog to get them to understand that they’re wrong. Unfortunately, the only dialog they seem to understand is loud and accusatory. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories[edit]

Hi,

You've reverted three of my edits at 9/11 Conspiracy Theories citing wp:point, however I'm not clear on exactly what you mean.

Reverting the last two pages seem to be uncalled for, imo. [1]

If you look at the above link, I merely took out the phrase "one of the most popular theories" since it is not found in the reference and added a web.archive link since it was broken. Clearly not "disruptive".

The other edit concerning David Icke was due to the lack of notabilty. My arguments are in the talk page, so I would appreciate if you respond there.

Reply under "David Icke" for the first edit and "A Quest For Knowledge Edit" for the first edit (concerning Pilots for 9/11 Truth, DRG, etc.).

Thanks, ArXivist (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mercy for Animals[edit]

I just wrote an article, Mercy for Animals. I notice you are active in PETA. I would appreciate any input or help with the article. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

9/11 nose issue[edit]

Well, the nose would have been destroyed even by smaller WTC columns. Haven't see any pictures of a plane's nose exiting one of the towers. (There are pictures and videos that show parts of the plane's fuselage.)  Cs32en  21:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Don’t start worrying about me just yet – I wasn’t being serious. Face-smile.svg The user was arguing that there was no plane because a plane nose projected out of the building. I was commenting to say that that’s absurd, like saying that there’s no car in his driveway because it’s blue. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 05:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerning this warning message you just posted, I would recommend you elaborate on it. I'm seeing nothing but good faithed comments from that editor, and see nothing that has been reverted in the first place – certainly nothing where a templated warning message would be constructive. --Amalthea 21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Cheers, Amalthea 20:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SSCS Flag.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SSCS Flag.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Username change[edit]

Think I'm going to make a username change. This one's just a wee bit dated.… — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 02:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking[edit]

Hello, I noticed you undid the links on the Alex Jones site. I was curious why you did that. I'm new here so I don't know if links like that aren't supposed to be within the article, or if you just felt the links would be better left at the end of the page in external links... Mojokabobo (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy specifically against it, but I prefer to have as few external links in article text as possible. I think if the links are already in the External Links section and/or the infobox, there's really no need to link them in the article. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 18:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification, I wasn't sure if I was violating some sort of policy (dear lord the rules can be complicated!!). Personally doesn't matter to me so i'll prob just leave it.Mojokabobo (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's WP:OVERLINK. I would say what I did isn't exactly enforcing it, but working "in the spirit" of it. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 12:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:PatriotU Crop.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:PatriotU Crop.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 07:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Creationism[edit]

Hey TheHerbalGerbil, I reverted your edit at Creationism. While I certainly agree with your point I don't think it comes across very encyclopedic and in fact seems rather "point of view"-ish (at least the way it was worded). Anyone reading the article has probably already made up their mind whether there is a religious bias and if evolution has been proven true so we don't need to tell them what to think. I wanted to leave you an explanation of why I made the change and not just an impersonal summary in the edit history. SQGibbon (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil - Bethune's detention and arrest[edit]

Hello, I noticed you inserted the word "ostensibly" into the Ady Gil article, regarding the purpose of Bethune's visit to the Captain of the Shonan Maru 2. But the supporting news story which is referenced states that as a fact. There is also video of Bethune knocking on the door of the bridge of the Shonan Maru 2 with a piece of paper in his hand - I'll try to find it. Do you have a reliable source that leads you to believe this is not true? Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the video. Doesn't look like he's planting any explosives or sabotaging the ship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU5s2hJA95k&feature=related Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not implying that Bethune had more sinister intentions. But Bethune's visit was a repeat performance of the Potts & Giles incident from a few years back, which was an admitted publicity stunt. To say that in the article would be original research, so I have to settle for using my knowledge to make sure more careful wording is used. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 12:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Letting you know[edit]

I want to let you know that I've started a discussion, primarily about SlimVirgin, at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Talk:PETA, but I also briefly mention you in it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind[edit]

I took one of your userboxes and tweaked it for my own page :). Soxwon (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of other users' talk page comments[edit]

I could drop a {{uw-tpv2}} here, but since you seem to be an experienced editor, I'll stick with prose. This edit removing the post of an IP user from a discussion is out of bounds. It would take much stronger language and irrational behavior, or some other violation of talk page policies, to justify such a removal. __meco (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn’t. The editor was badmouthing one of the subjects of the article and trolling. It’s a violation of a handful of policies, WP:FORUM and WP:CIVIL not being the least of them. If he editor wants to have a positive impact, he can try not being a dick. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 13:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Offence[edit]

Hi Just letting you know I (and another 7.5 million people) take offence to a recent comment you placed in the review summary of Criticism of sport utility vehicles, where you said 'a state in Australia? Seriously?'. Yes, seriously. Have you ever been to Australia? Do you know New South Wales is larger than Texas? And has a population larger than Missouri? And has a very good record in car safety. Seriously? Yes. Notwithstanding that, I don't think the removed sentence accurately conveyed the document's intent, and the article is better off without it. Seriously. peterl (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If people want to take offence at their home state not being an accurate representation of the rest of the world, they can go take a long walk on a short pier. I don’t care if it’s Australia, Belize or Croatia, apart from it being more obvious that an editor is cherry-picking when he has to reach that far to find something to support his POV. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 21:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Joescience3.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Joescience3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, TheHerbalGerbil. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)