User talk:Ed Poor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Re: abortion

In my view it should become evident fairly soon if it is not already, whether informal mediation would benefit that page. Mediation, correct me if I am wrong, works on the principle that positions are honestly held and understanding is sought. Prolonging a discussion deliberately if once one "sees the light" but doesn't like it, can only be dealt with in my view by sanctions, assumming good faith cannot continue forever. Overly complicating an article with lots of definitions is not the best solution when there is disagreement. The goal is not simply consensus but a readable understandable article too.DMSBel (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ed Poor. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. I've begun to read it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sent you a second one. Not really anyway to sugar coat this stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

APA (shrinks) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect APA (shrinks). Since you had some involvement with the APA (shrinks) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). - 2/0 (cont.) 16:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why Twinkle phrases the message that way, but I just nominated a redirect you created for deletion. Discussion at that link. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

TextPad

I didn't know you used TextPad. That's my editor of choice, too. Excellent app; lightweight and does everything you need and nothing you don't. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

At least since last century, when I taught a Java course at a private institute. The advantage of TextPad over using an IDE as that you can control all your .java source files directly, and the students don't have to waste 1 or 2 classes learning the environment.

I've even made my own test framework for TDD, in TextPad. It's breathtakingly simple. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: I use it for every type of coding. I find language specific IDEs are generally too "feature" laden and obscure the actual code, reducing your control over what you're writing. TextPad is also UNIX and Multibyte friendly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your latest "factoid"

I don't trust the mainstream media, because they are hopelessly conservative and whore themselves out to the corporate/statist establishment for the sake of advertising dollars, while adopting a thin veneer of sophistication/"liberalism". Does that mean I'm no true liberal? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sentiments sound typical of liberals I've met. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 has been amended by the Arbitration Committee

Please see here for further details. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Congratulations, though I admit that is a rather minor change. Do not blow it. I understand that you do not agree and do not like most criticisms and that is fine. I trust that you will not act like a complete partisan there and will not turn a blind eye to POV pro-UC edits. (not what Jossi used to do at talk:Prem Rawat). Thanks Andries (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Andries. I promise not to act the partisan and to be just as vigilant on pro-UC bias as on anti-UC bias. All I want is a balanced and neutral description. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: finding the right words

I seen this part of your comment on IP 67...s page:

Surely no one will argue that a "dead thing" can have a heartbeat; even if they can argue that it isn't a "human being" yet (apparently there's something about birth which marks the end of "potential humanhood" (?) and "humanity" (?) - I need to find the right words. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Something significant does happen at birth. The fetus goes from being a passive, parasitic growth to becoming an active agent in his own life. Additionally, we now know that this is the moment when consciousness is first possible. The fetal brain is awash in chemicals that keep it sedated and anesthetized until birth. These chemicals are neutralized when the newborn draws its first breath, allowing consciousness to arise. See "The importance of 'awareness' for understanding fetal pain", David Mellor, 2005 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16269314 Interestingly, the Stoics and some Jews believed that the soul enters the body with the first breath. Science can't prove souls, but it can prove consciousness.Ermadog (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to offer you some help. DMSBel (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish you would, because there's a semantic issue obscuring a political / moral issue. One entry point is the slogan, "Human life begins at conception." This implies that when the man's sperm unites with the woman's ovum, "a new human life will be created." [1] Of course the question is at what point in the reproductive cycle is this new life imbued with (or recognized to have) "human rights".

To say the the embryo is "not human" is one approach. It is only at some point in the series of events typically beginnig with labor, proceeding on to birth, cutting the cord, and the THING taking ITS first breath - that it becomes to be regarded as human.

Perhaps some people don't even want this to be made too clear. But I'm interested in laying out precisely where people agree and disagree. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Embryo/fetus is nascent life - since you have some linguistic understanding, I hope you can maybe help with the semantics, though I am not sure it solves the political / moral issue. But its a good word - "nascent". There is a medical field called peri-natal pediatrics, dealing with the time just before and after birth. So interestingly pediatrics extends back to before birth. I really don't see why JJL is so bent on removing mention of death from the first sentence, its simply descriptive. I may need to discuss this further with you.DMSBel (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

<chuckle> Nascent life as in "being born or beginning" [2]

When a contributor wants an idea removed from an article, it's often because of the implications of that idea:

Abortion causes the death of the fetus

The fetus is human

Causing the death of a human is "homicide"

Homicide is sometimes a crime

Therefore, abortion is sometimes a crime

This conclusion is opposed by those (pro-choice?) who assert that elective abortion is rarely or never a crime (or that it should be legal).

Does the implication thing help? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes re implications, but nascent is more nuanced than that: beginning to develope or come into existence is a closer definition. [[3]] DMSBel (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw please don't be put off by my topic ban. I went off a little on the wrong foot when I started editing. DMSBel (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm under a topic ban myself. I confused "thinking I'm right" with "following the conventions of this project". After making my point and realizing that others were resisting, I should have left well enough alone or pursued dispute resolution. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I really am still finding my way around wikipedia, and I don't have the confidence that it really works sometimes. I think that saps my editing euthusiasm a good deal, esp. with editors who are gaming the system. DMSBel (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing minim

You added something to the effect of "a note that is played for two beats" to the minim abstract which is not only incorrect, it's redundant with the correct formulation one sentence later. I removed it. If you think it should go there, be sure to defend it well. Talk to you later.

Limited Atonement (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

POV Pushing

Please stop trying to push a POV on The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I reverted your edits twice because they were unsourced, and now you try to justify them with links that by any standard fail WP:RS. I see you have a history of... controversial... edits, and I suggest that this is another occasion in which you should step back. Absconded Northerner (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Absconded Northerner here that your reverts without sources were not okay. In addition the sources that you later used are not good enough. Moreover, the topic of the article is very narrow, so I think your statements that you added were rather off-topic.

One possible solution would be to delete the article or to merge it. However this may fail. Andries (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are not good enough, then I'll stop. Perhaps it is only a fringe notion that it is Marxists or socialists who believe that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" as a matter of principle, economic science, or ideology. If the late S. H. Lee is the only author advancing that notion, then it might not belong in Wikipedia.

It's not pov pushing to mention an idea that goes against the grain, if it's well-sourced. But since no one but me thinks the source(s) acceptable, I'll stop. Thanks for the gentle admonition. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries and dab guidelines

Hi, Ed. Re this edit summary -- that was out of line. It turns out that you weren't aware of the partial-title match guidelines; no big deal, it's not exactly mainstream Wikipedia. But there's no need to assume bad faith because of that ignorance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was out of line, but I had the impression that you were trying to make it hard for users to find Passion of the Christ - and using the rules as an excuse. If you were just following rules without such a motivation, my apologies.

But is there really a rule that forbids partial-title matches from being placed where a reader is likely to look for it? I need to see that rule so I don't accidentally violate it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your impression gave me the impression that you weren't assuming good faith. Yes, the rule that keeps partial title matches off of disambiguation pages is there because the reader is not likely to look for it there -- it's not ambiguous. WP:PTM, as linked from my edit summary. (Irrelevant, but I'm a happy owner of a DVD of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Also irrelevant, removing something from a disambiguation page is not censorship.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Disney Role Call

Hi, WikiProject Disney has been rather inactive recently. I saw that you are a member of the project. If you still consider yourself to be an active member, leave a response on the Project's talk page. Hopefully we can get the project up and running again. Thanks!--GroovySandwich 23:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Solar system bullets

Template:Solar system bullets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Current month calendar

Template:Current month calendar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Brackets

Template:Brackets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	For your informal mediation efforts in the discussion on Abortion. DMSBel (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now if I can just find my trophy case . . . ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically I should award the other half to someone else, but I am not sure who deserves it most! ;-)DMSBel (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good thing you didn't award me this for partial abortion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate abbreviations...

Knock Knock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

... Oh. Sorry, Stephan. Gosh, really, I didn't know - wasn't thinking - and won't do it again. *sigh* --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No bad feelings. You're not the first, and likely won't be the last - and I'm a grown person. I use StS as initials to avoid the unfortunate association... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	I really appreciate your common sense - visible particularly in your 2007 comments (see here) on Monogamy Quodvultdeus (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fart lighting

Hello Ed Poor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fart lighting, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: you may have started it as a joke, but that was 8 years ago and many others have contributed. It can no longer be speedied per WP:CSD#G7 - if you think it should not be kept, try AfD. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your decision stinks, LOL! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried but failed to think of a riposte which will be appropriate, i.e. will further lower the tone of the conversation. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

You know...you should really be shot for this.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 06:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought Ed didn't believe in greenhouse gases ;) Sunray (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't have a cow: this was humor, not a real article. [4]

Back in 2003, we still were all in a good enough mood to tolerate a little fooling around. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, I was laughing all the way, didn't mean to sound at all serious. I thought it was funny...thus the added smiley on the end of my sentence.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 20:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the smiley till after my reply. I guess you omitted the nose because of the stinky subject matter? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he got too close and the nose got blown off :) Sunray (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Maxwells equations

A tag has been placed on Maxwells equations, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have fixed this, the result of a curious move and move back of Maxwell's equations. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See this section of my talk page for the reason for this notice; it's partly due to my method of importing old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, and partly due to an over-active redirect bot. Graham87 07:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Piers Forster

The article Piers Forster has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection. Delete it if you don't want it. Add an RS for support. Whatever. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Ebonics" (or rather, AAVE)

In belated response to your question here:

After wondering why people use the term "Ebonics", you are using it to mean African American Vernacular English (AAVE). What is AAVE? (i) It is very obviously not a pidgin. (If the "Pidgin" article does not clearly explain pidgins as entirely different, then that article must be very bad.) (ii) It does seem to be a creole, to some limited degree. (iii) It cannot be slang. Slang describes words, and a language isn't merely a bag of words. (If you think it is, consider "Slang word describe, language word bag merely be".)

AAVE is a lect of English. If you define "dialect" broadly, it's a dialect. (These are of course common in English.) If you like the idea of different kinds of lects, it's an ethnolect or sociolect. (These happen to be unusual in north American English.)

I can make guesses, but I don't know about the primary uses of the word "Ebonics" in 2011.

It's encouraging that you're interested by the regularities of AAVE. You seem to be aware of its distinctive syntax and morphology -- for yes, it has a grammar, because it's a language (and not just a congeries of slang). The African American Vernacular English article should explain this but doesn't do so very well; I recommend Lisa Green's book African American English (solid, but readable and not so expensive).

I've never heard of anyone "exalting" AAVE (by any name), exactly, but I have read people reveling in it and celebrating it. This is very normal for a dialect of English and indeed for US English in general or English in general.

AAVE is spoken by Black Americans. Blacks have, on average, a low social status in the US. Moreover, it's associated with cities. In English (and other languages?), city dialects are sniffed at, when (like Cockney) they're not treated condescendingly as quaint. So all in all it's a basilect. No surprise then that many people disdain it. This is their problem, not a problem with AAVE.

HTH. -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Better late than never, and good food for thought.

I agree that people revel in and celebrate AAVE.

I'm currently teaching math in Harlem, so I hear my students lapse into (i.e., use) Black English from time to time. But they are taught to correct themselves and use Standard English.

Personally, I wonder if it is possible to teach standard English without "putting down" the vernacular. Just like when I was in the army I didn't swear much, but I knew the words (you betcher ass I did!) and could swear like a trooper when the situation called for it.

I am interested in how our articles can describe the various ways people speak English. The distinction between patois, creole, dialect, etc. And specifically I would love to see a summary of the "rules" of AAVE, along with how they derived from a specific county in England or wherever. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The English of, say, Kentucky is not necessarily standard American English. Why would a teacher of English in Kentucky feel a need to "put down" the vernacular? Actually I've never been in or even near Kentucky, so I have a cartoon-strip picture of the place and the likely scenario, with hillbillies defending their language with guns. All very silly -- but not as silly as some of the bunk spoken about AAVE by people who ought to know better.

For WP's attempt at summarizing the grammar and phonology of AAVE, see its article "African American Vernacular English". For something better, see the book by Green that I recommended above. And I've just noticed that she has a new one out, Language and the African American Child (ISBN 9780521618175), and for a lower price.

Look, the rules wouldn't come from any specific place. And even though AAVE happens to share non-rhoticity with standard British (and Boston) English, there's no reason to expect AAVE to be closer to the English of England than standard US is.

While you're waiting to get hold of either of the books by Green (or something similar), I recommend this piece by Geoff Pullum. -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus

You have aded quotations in the References section instead of the Notes section, where they belong. As Carl Linnaeus is a GA, and you are an experienced editor, please take the time to format your additions correctly. If you do not remember how to do this, see Help:Footnotes or WP:CITE. The two kinds of notes should not be mixed, as they were carefully cleaned up and separated as part of the GA review process. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this comment until you pointed it out at talk:Carl Linnaeus. I will respond there. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A user proposed deletion of Environmental skepticism

Another user has proposed the deletion of the article you created, Environmental skepticism. I declined the prod, because the topic appears to be notable and backed by reliable sources. However, please consider adding more sourcing to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Socialism and famine, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Communist China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited McCarthyism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Suggestion

Stop moving pages with a long history. Propose your changes at the talk page first and wait for reaction. You're crossing the line of being bold, and will get blocked if not slow down. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To hear is to obey. I'm done moving crop circle and dihydrogen monoxide hoax. The last thing I would ever want to do is to go against consensus here. Thanks for the tip. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Global warming and hurricanes

A tag has been placed on Global warming and hurricanes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DebashisM^Talk 19:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to People and People (disambiguation)!Chrisrus (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I like to clarify terms so people can understand the concepts. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that a couple of people decided to ... Was this only because of...?

Err, did you miss the section just above that discusses this very issue? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The section above what? You know I wear glasses. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Above the one you edited William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On what page? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page where you recently wrote "I note that a couple of people decided to..." William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You should get a job at the Microsoft help desk; your response is technically correct but a completely useless answer. [5]

Aww, you're no fun. OK Talk:IPCC_Summary_for_Policymakers#Crit William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Scientific controversy"

Hi Ed. Are you aware that scientific controversy is a redirect (and has been one since the Creation) to scientific method? I really don't think it is useful to add Wikilinks the way you did apparently to a number of articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning to write an article on Scientific controversies, after linking and categorizing enough of them. I don't think that our Scientific method article contains enough information on how a scientific controversy arises, how it is (sometimes) resolved, or what keeps it alive. Note that I am not talking at all about political controversies over scientific issues, only about controversies within the scientific community. Take a look at my contribs and see which ones I've wikilinked. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Scientific controversy" looks more like a dictionary definition to me, for which see WP:NOT#DICT. Do you have any sources on "scientific controversies" as a stand-alone topic? I think this would be an interesting research project for a historian of science, but I'm not aware of it as a significant topic in itself as of now. Of course, I don't know everything that is published. But if you want to synthesise an article from individual controversies, you end up in WP:OR territory very soon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My notes are here. I'm not going to create an article if we can say everything about it just by defining the term. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted category edits

I reverted your recent category changes at The Double Helix. The article does fit better in Category:Scientific controversies than in Category:Controversial books which doesn't even exist. Controversial books was deleted a long time ago as being too vague and broad a classification that would have been difficult to keep up. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Controversial_books#Category:Controversial_books. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When I got started, I didn't realize 'books' had been deleted. That leaves S.C. as a good alternative. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Computer bug (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bug

Homosexual behavior in animals (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Homosexual behavior

Kerry Emanuel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to SST

Palestinian Jews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palestinian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with IP editor

Hi. I really need some administrator-to-administrator advice. Can you offer your opinions on Question 2 - 5 that I've posed at the top of this discussion?

Everyone else participating there is only focusing on Question 1, which I thought would be answered more quickly and straightforwardly, and is already being discussed at Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case If you want to offer your insights on Question 1 as well, can you do so there? Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein 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/Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein (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 Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Song of the South

Greetings. I wanted to let you know that I have undone your recent edit at Song of the South. While I'm sure you meant well, unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place for links that potentially circumvent copyright laws. Since the film is still under copyright, and since Disney has made no attempt to release the film in the United States (for reasons that I personally think are obsolete, for what it's worth), it is highly likely that this site you mentioned is providing access to the film illegally. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to respond on my talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! --McDoobAU93 02:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you have invoked the magic phrase "copyright law", of course I will leave it alone. However the site I linked to asserts that Disney has checked out his site many times. I thought that the "charges of racism" was the main issue; the site owner, Christian Willis, examines every possible good and bad point on that issue here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Climate-cooling aerosols

Category:Climate-cooling aerosols, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elaine Donnelly (writer)

The article Elaine Donnelly (writer) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bihco (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elaine Donnelly (writer)

The article Elaine Donnelly (writer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability not established.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Heterosexual couple

The article Heterosexual couple has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman

The article Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Theroadislong (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Black poverty

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Black poverty. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Poverty in the United States#Poverty and demographics. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Poverty in the United States#Poverty and demographics - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Heterosexual couple for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heterosexual couple 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/Heterosexual couple 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. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blacklisted by History

The article Blacklisted by History has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBOOK absent significant coverage in reliable sources - all sources are fringe, such as AIM, Canada Free Press, Renew America, letters to the editor, etc. or alternately coincidentally contain the phrase in a piece published before the book existed.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Man out of the house (welfare rule) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Man out of the house (welfare rule) 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/Man out of the house (welfare rule) 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited I Walk the Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page True (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Blacklisted by History for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blacklisted by History 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/Blacklisted by History 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Socialism and famine

The article Socialism and famine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Reliable sources don't, on balance, discuss "socialism and famine"; they discuss specific famines, or famines and their relationship to various human enterprises. Pulling quotes out of context or trying to combine various famines in order to make a point about socialism is POV-pushing synth. There is one source about "socialism and famine," but an article on a far-reaching concept cannot be based on one source.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with enough of that, to have no objection to deleting the article. But I'd rather userfy it and try again in a few days or weeks. Your call. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Lump of coal

I strongly disagree with your move of Miracle on 34th Street. The 1947 film is far and away the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Is there a way to move it back, or do we have to ask an admin for help? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Unwed motherhood

Ed, I'm sure you know this already, but since Unwed motherhood was speedily deleted at your request, the talk page is going to be deleted as well per WP:CSD#G8. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wicker Amendment

The article Wicker Amendment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Permanent stub. One source and three sentences does not make an article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christmas Every Day

The article Christmas Every Day has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Unsourced. Permanent stub.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blaming the Victim

The article Blaming the Victim has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Merged to Victim blaming. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Flemming Rule for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flemming Rule 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/Flemming Rule 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:WilliamH wrote:

• The result was Keep. Despite initial concern, consensus emerged that there is available non-trivial coverage.

Proposed deletion of Just another species

The article Just another species has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this subject ("just another species") is a subject. Absolutely no reliable sources are presented discussing this topic. All sources given merely use the phrase (or a phrase somewhat similar to it).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman

The article Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No third-party sourcing or articulation of how the topic meets WP:PROF

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elaine Donnelly (writer)

The article Elaine Donnelly (writer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Weak sourcing, no indication of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives

The article Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (One passing mention in a blog is not sufficient.)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)