User talk:Warren Dew

Iraq page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Warren+Dew

Nice work filling the gaps on the Iraq page. Czolgolz 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Warren Dew 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

world hunger

(removed irrelevant figure on world hunger - please post on the discussion page if you're really starting a project to add this to every page that mentions a dollar figure)

Write a longer edit summary. Haizum 03:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Warren Dew 04:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Warren Dew, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, 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!  Travb (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In case you visit here again, I'd suggest also including in that template links to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Steak

Hi, just saw your comments on the Steak talk page and your edits to the article. I think longer cooking time does result in lowered juiciness, as parts of the meat approach and exceed 212 degrees F. As to your talk page question, how does the current doneness table difer from your experience? Feel free to contact me here or on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing. —Nate Scheffey 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, longer cooking does result in lower juicyness; I just changed the wording a bit to say shorter cooking time retains juices better, to balance the sentence after my other edits. If you think a rewording of what I wrote would be better, go for it.

The current doneness list says that "rare" has a warm center where I was taught the center should still be cool, basically still completely raw in the middle; the article also says that medium rare has a pink center where I was taught it should still be red. One possible compromise would be http://www.ruthschris.com/steak/doneness.html but I'm not sure if a commercial site can be used as a wikipedia source.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, after looking more closely at the list I agree with you, medium rare should usually have some redness left. This is an interesting question because it is an inherently arbitrary and subjective distinction. Maybe our best bet would be citing some sort of well-known cooking tome, perhaps McGee. Thoughts? —Nate Scheffey 06:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a well known book would be better. My edition of McGee doesn't have a full set of doneness ratings, though - just discusses protein coagulation. Maybe move this to the steak talk page and look for sources there?

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why do the work when I can have a bot like you do it for me! Us humans forget sometimes you know.

Paleolithic diet

Hi Warren, thanks for your contribution to the Paleo diet article. I noticed that you added this to the article:

"A few post Paleolithic dietary adaptations are known. Different mutations for adult lactose tolerance occurred independently in and now dominate four separate pastoral populations which came to depend on dairy in their diets after the paleolithic; these mutations are still rare or absent in other modern populations. Some sources posit that blood types other than O are in part an adaptation for cereal grains in the diet."

As per Wikipedia:No original research, the criticism section is reserved for published criticisms of the Paleolithic diet. The sources given above do not appear to directly criticize the Paleo diet. You need to provide sources which clearly state: "The paleo diet is flawed because of ...[add dietary adaptation arguments here]...". Accordingly, I have removed the above paragraph from the article for the moment. If you can provide sources for the criticism which comply with Wikipedia policy WP:OR requirements, the paragraph will certainly be restored.

As an aside, Paleo diet advocates do not deny that some human populations have developped adaptations to certain novel foods, they argue that humans are not fully adapted to the new diet. While populations like Europeans may have developed some adaptations to grains and milk, other constituents of these foods may remain hazardous for human health. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored that bit. Although it's true the sentences aren't exactly criticism, they are interesting and relevant facts with encyclopedic value to the article subject. If the sentences don't work in the criticism section, they should be included somewhere in the article. =Axlq 04:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I respectfully disagree. This research is relevant, but the sources do not explicitely refer to the Paleo diet, and so the paragraph constitutes original research, no matter where you put it in the article. To be acceptable, the sources must clearly state in what way this information is relevant to the diet. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Let's take this to the talk page for the article.

I am seeking third opinion of this matter. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to question

I noticed that you edited my user page. I moved the section to my talk page, where I prefer to chat, and I'll respond there. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Should not replace dashes with emdashes in page numbers

Someone just used AWB on the Multiregional evolution page, which I'm currently cleaning up. I noticed that it seems to replace dashes with emdashes between page numbers in cites. It really should leave them alone, or prefer normal dashes. Normal dashes are more accessible as they are in more character sets, and they save some space. Please don't replace them. If this is a feature request rather than a bug, please move it there. Diff here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans&action=historysubmit&diff=406110873&oldid=406110598 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs)

 Not done You can read about how and why endashes are used on Wikipedia at the Manual of Style at WP:DASH. Rjwilmsi 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And they are endashes, not emdashes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this being moved to my talk page? Warren Dew (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for your info. I thought it is better if I inform you about the discussion here than just archive it in AWB's archives. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was following it there, but didn't really have anything to add - looks like policy is against me on this one - so it's find to archive. Warren Dew (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent African origin of modern humans

It appears that you are engaging in edit warring in the above article. Per my reasoning here, I have reverted your edits. Before any further reversions, it would be appropriate if you discuss this issue on the articles talk page. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary, my recent edits were attempts to incorporate Moxy's comments on material I had previously introduced to the article. I was already discussing things on the article's talk page.

Please note that my most recent edit did not restore a previous revision by me; it restored this previous revision by Moxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans&oldid=407109602

I don't know if you're planning to get involved in the article editing. If you are, I'd appreciate if you'd read the sources I added, especially the 2005 Templeton paper, to get a balanced perspective. From the Templeton paper, figure 7 showing the trimodal distribution of dates for genetic signs of migrations, and figure 8 showing continued restricted gene flow back to long before the dates given for recent African origins are particularly instructive. The neanderthal and denisovan information are also relevant, but you may have heard about those in the popular press.

If you're not planning to get involved in this article, I'd appreciate if you'd revert to Moxy's revision 407109602, linked to above, instead of completely wiping out the new material. I'd hate to have to toss a POV tag on the article for excluding relevant scientific information, but it's difficult to resolve any criticisms of the new information when faced only with reversions of the information with no attempt on anyone else's part to make edits that would resolve possible issues with how the information is presented.

Warren Dew (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your reply. I have suggested a possible compromise here. I think we should incorporate the new material that you have added, however in my opinion, the way it is presented should be modified a bit. Boghog (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Suri Cruise

Reverting the article on Suri Cruise back to the redirect, as was decided at an AfD discussion, is not vandalism, and your labeling it as such is inappropriate. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The AfD is five years old. At the time of the AfD, Suri Cruise was only a few months old and was not notable except as a child of her parents. Now, five years later, she is quite notable in her own right. Blanking the page based on a five year old AfD that an administrator agreed was no longer applicable is, in my opinion, accurately described by the word "vandalism".

Do you even know what vandalism is? Never mind:

Nomination of Suri Cruise for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suri Cruise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suri Cruise (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Candelabra hypothesis

Sorry i was away for a while, just saw your comment.

The term 'Candelabra' was coined by William White Howells (Mankind in the Making, 1959) to describe Coon's view of the origin of the races. Its completely incorrect, but nonetheless the only term which has ever been used to describe Coon's evolutionary model. Its incorrect because Howell's misinterpretated Weidenreich's polycentric (multiregional) origin of the races, which actually includes large amounts of gene-flow (regional interbreeding) when he wrongly believed it was a parallel (polygenic) model of the races. However Coon stressed far less on this gene-flow, but still allowed for it. So basically neither Weidenreich nor Coon's multiregionalism is true parallel or polygenic evolution, however Coon's model comes far closer to it, as his model doesn't take much interbreeding into account, his geneflow is very minimal. Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution pp. 114-115 (see on google books) has a full discussion, pointing all this out. Coon also believed the racial developments and splits were long before sapienization, and that they were present in archaic homo and even earlier. If you read his Racial Adaptations (1982) he briefly discusses his idea that the Australopithecine's were already split into the races, for example he sees Mongoloid dental traits in one regional variation. However true polyphyletic or polygenism models on the origins of the races died out in the late 19th century. Karl Vogt for example argued the different races were never at any one point related, and that they evolved from different primates. Onion hotdog (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Warren Dew. 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

Hello, Warren Dew. 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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brittany Pettibone (May 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chrissymad was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brittany Pettibone and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Brittany Pettibone, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Warren Dew! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Warren Dew. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)