User talk:Snalwibma/Archives

...

Optimistic

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 I'm thinking the life lesson might be of greater value than the content gained from their subject of choice. The interesting aspect of Wikipedia is the interactions between editors. Honestly, I expected half of them to drop the course after reviewing the FA dialog on Introduction to Evolution. However, to my surprise my own daughter (in my class) was up at 1:00 am trying to format her user page. My little family of high school over-achievers may surprise me. Either way ... feel free to monitor their progress and interject as you see fit. This place can be harsh so any love you can share will go a long way! --JimmyButler (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are ages 14 - 17 enrolled in an advanced level biology course. The assumption is they will take a test which should allow them to receive college credit for biology - assuming their scores or adequate. Some are very bright, some are just highly motivated. --JimmyButler (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Use/mention fallacies

Thank you for having had the courtesy to provide an edit summary when removing my article about use/mention fallacies and replacing the original redirect to the use-mention distinction article. In the same spirit, I have not (yet) recreated the article, but have responded to your edit summary ("This page is nothing but WP:OR. There is no "fallacy". Best as a redirect") on the corresponding talk page. -PRNG4u (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Body

Thank you for the suggestions and offer of help. They are vcery much appreciated and/or needed. For the formatting of the article, I was pseudo-envisioning an organizational structure of:

-Introduction
-Major Systems (Cardiovascular, Reproductive, Skeletal), with relevant information and links to the full Wiki article of each)
-Other relevant information... though I figure that behavior/interaction/etc. don't really belong in the article(?)... they're more suited for their own separate pages.
-Conclusion

Unless you can suggest something better? I feel absolutely overwhelmed. haha --Strombollii (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news: I've decided to drop the human body article in favor of the genetic equilibrium article. However, I'd love for you to continue as my mentor, and possible go back and finish the human body article at a later date (and not for a grade). --Strombollii (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, I know exactly what you mean, and I was anticipating a rather large array of technical language; but I think it'd be easier to become comfortable with the jargon than to sort through the mess that would encompass the human body article.
As for dropping him a line, I left him a note on his talk page, but I'll definitely run it by him in person.
I just feel that the topic would hold my interest far more than the human body would, even if it requires a fair bit of work. --Strombollii (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep you updated, I ran it past him and he was just as uncertain as you were. I know I sound rather indecisive, and I'm sorry for keeping you in limbo, but I'm switching to Osteitis fibrosa cystica on the recommendation of a fellow student, and google/pubmed searches. --71.74.28.68 (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG ...

... I'm turning into Our Mutual Friend, and am actually defending the article on The Dawkins Delusion! Where did I go wrong?!?  ;-) --PLUMBAGO 08:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

Please read my comment on the abortion discussion page. Spotfixer (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osteitis fibrosa cystica

I know it's been a while since any activity at all has come from my account, and I apologize for it: I've been wrapped up in a myriad of things, and the Wiki's been on the backburner, but I just made a whirlwind of edits to the article. If you have the time, is there any way you could run through the mess I've made and offer any suggestions? Strombollii (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you happen to have any suggestions for expanding my topic? I'd like to add more content, but I really don't know where to begin. Strombollii (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still plugging away. Any chance of you giving the article a once over?Strombollii (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

azma.com

why do you think azma.com is spam, it is run by a health trends company www.sdihealth.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.86.85 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Flew poll

Hi, I've started a poll at Talk:Antony_Flew#Fully protected for three days. Please would you post on which version of the introduction you prefer.

Thanks,

— Hyperdeath(Talk) 00:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Anthony Flew poll

Hi,

I have started another poll on the Anthony Flew article, at Talk:Antony Flew#Poll on inclusion versus removal of Flew's criticism of Richard Dawkins.

Regards,

— Hyperdeath(Talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted post

User Khamosh has deleted your post to the Anthony Flew talk page:

(Difference shown here)

Regards,

— Hyperdeath(Talk) 11:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionism

You said Humani Generis discussed evolution, not evolutionism. Fair enough. But it seems fair to say that Pascendi did talk about evolutionism, albeit in a very critical way. A good read BTW. ADM (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my!

I not be as smart as they be'es. Was the edit adequate to address the concern or not? I'm afraid to ask on the talk page! --JimmyButler (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry --- should not have thrown fuel on that fire. I actually dropped by to make note of the two outstanding GA reviews on Osteitis fibrosa cystica. My confidence in this author is very high. As you noted in a post to their talk - and ironically in your response to the rubbish - "drawing attention to an article (good or bad) is an excellent way to recruit involvement". I'm thinking about throwing a GA party at the end of the grading period. Perhaps de-emphasizing points and refocus on the thrill of the success! Your welcome to join us ; although I'm guessing it would be quite a trip. --JimmyButler (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:BITE

Let's just let the Jonathan Park thing drop, okay? I'm not going to ruin my testimony and reputation in fighting over something in the past. Huck2012 E. Novachek (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks thou doest use the word "rubbish" too much. Huck2012 E. Novachek (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Hi Snalwibma,

The history of the talk page for the boy or girl paradox says that I reverted your post; I certainly didn't mean to. I think I accidentally reverted that instead of reverting the changes to the article. Sorry for the mistake. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that was what had happened. No problem! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not trolling

am not troll STOP richard dawkins article needs serious work STOP lots of weasel words STOP will not rvrt since you are touchyfuchy STOP would edits to remove weasels be appropriate STOP still lacks citations STOP DoucheCadet (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted your Four Horsemen revert. Please recognize real vandalism when you see it (that article was vandalized, I had fixed it). As for the Dawkins article, I am working to improve it. There's no need to be nasty with people just figuring how this thing works. DoucheCadet (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing

Hi SNALWIBMA. You may have already spotted this particular gem, but if not you might find its call for willing meatpuppets rather amusing. Given the recent upswing in the sinfulness of our mutual friend, I thought that I'd treat myself and visit his blog again. It's never disappointing. Incidentally, thanks for digging up this review — that also gave me something of a laugh. Grayling doesn't exactly take prisoners at the best of times, but this was something of a beating. Almost makes me want to pick up a copy of QoT! Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Itisnotme

Thanks. I posted at AN/I to ask an admin to block him long enough to discuss the issue. No idea what will come of it. I'm outta here, gotta go to work. --KP Botany (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The God Delusion#Moderate religion and fundamentalism

The Economist article can not be viewed in its entirety without paying, and may well have been signed at the bottom - so it is not 'abundantly' clear to me. The CC have obviously seen the whole article, and know that it is not signed, and as this CC article is the only article I could find that says so, I used it (if you type ‘richard dawkins unnamed economist’ into Google, it’s all you get). Assuming other readers 'will' find it abundantly clear, I will leave things as they are now. Finally, the CC article is what it is - a few editorial style paragraphs (whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant) - it is not 'masquerading' as anything. I trust you did not intend to question my good faith by using that word. Mannafredo (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "masquerading" I was referring not to what the Christian Courier is doing but simply to the way the reference in The God Delusion was framed. It included "Economist" as the title of the journal, as if it was a reference to an article in the Economist. It wasn't. It was a link to an article in Christian Courier. I have no opinion on whether that article should be mentioned - but if it is, it needs to be correctly cited. That's all. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes, I understand. A badly put together ref on my part. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unit of Mass:Kevins

I would like to know the reason why you keep deleting this unit of measurement? It's not widely know, I give you that, but it is widely known to enough people to where it can at least be mentioned in a list of unique or humorous measurements. A lot of students on the Colorado State University campus are familiar with this unit of measurement, and it is helpful for us students and engineers to fully understand the magnitude of weights of various object we will one day be working with in the real world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.60.126 (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PDF

"We need to make the two meanings more visible by putting them at the start of the line." - Fine by me.
(However, FYI, the others who were involved in the endless debate may have a different pov ... )
"Please do not accuse others of ignorance" - I wasn't accusing you of ignorance per se - I was stating that your action demonstrated ignorance of the endless debate that had led to the consensus. Yes, my shorthand expression of that could have been worded (much) better. You took from it a meaning that I had not intended. My apologies. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. No problem. I made my initial edit to PDF (disambiguation) because (a) it seems to me that uppercase/lowercase does not in fact (in the real world, in which authors are not nearly as careful as we might like to think) distinguish probability distribution function from probability density function; (b) the function of a disambiguation page is simply to refer the reader to possible meanings and the locations of further information, not to discuss such niceties (see WP:MOSDAB); (c) on my fist visit to the page I actually failed to spot these two meanings of "pdf" because they were hidden in the body of the text rather than in a lead position. I'm quite happy with making the distinction between pdf and PDF - but I will argue strongly to keep the meaning at the beginning of the line in each case. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you'd been around whilst the "endless debate" was in progress - your pov seems much the same as mine. Note that the wording of any and all of the pages involved, not just the disambig, are not my first choice, but are the result of compromise. (Yes, we have descended to the lowest common denominator ... ) If the pedants return, I'll let you loose on them! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

Why did you delete the statement about what other mainstream christian beliefs are? Only stating what some Anglican and Catholic Church leaders is not representative. Most Pentecostal, Baptist and Brethren leaders advocate creation science - including as my reference showed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lskil09 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could see, your reference showed no such thing. But, in any case, such a radical change of the slant of the article needs to be discussed on the talk page. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of the reference is that the largest church in Australia adheres to creationism (20,000 people). The article was a nationally broadcast TV interview transcript with the pentecostal pastor, where he states he believes in creationism. (The second largest church in Australia is only about 5000 people)

In fact, the most famous Baptist Pastor in the USA at the moment also supports creationism. [1]

This statistic could also be included: "54% of creationist churches in the UK are Baptist of some form" [2]

Take it to Talk:Creationism. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know. Thanks. (just realised i forgot to sign too)--Lskil09 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paradoxes

Hello Tzraton, I noticed this edit. Did you nuke it on sight, or did you search? I'm not going to contest your edit, but it sounded at least remotely plausible. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero google hits seemed a good enough reason to delete. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Ireland Wikimedia email list

Hi Snalwibma:

I'm delighted to announce that we've started a new Ireland Wikimedian email list, that you can join, at mail:WikimediaIE. For Wikimedians in Ireland and Wikimedians interested in events in Ireland and efforts in Ireland. It's there to to discuss meetups, partnerships with Museums and National Archives, and anything else where Wikipedia and real life intersect. --Bastique demandez 22:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moles

I was working on that article about moles in general. You keep undoing me, making it only about some particular moles you seem biased toward and ignoring all others you seem biased against. You and I are headed for an edit war if you don't stop and talk this out with with me. I'll wait a day or two for you to respond and then I'll put it back to the way it was when I was working on it and keep improving it from there. I'm trying to make it as clear as possible that a mole by definition is a type of animal with clear paramaters recognised by speakers of English and not a genetically related group of animals. I gave all types of details about that and thought I was making that very clear. If the details were wrong, you could have just helped fix them instead of destroying the whole thing Chrisrus (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AP Bio 2008/OFC

Just thought I'd drop by on the close of the project. Just got GA, and nominated for FAC, though it'll be a long, arduous road I may never finish.

Thank you for the mentoring, even though we may not have forged the same mentor-student relationship some others did, I still think that you deserve a massive thank-you for even volunteering. And your help throughout was concise yet integral to my success.

I plan on sticking around for a while, maybe picking up where a few classmates left off. Feel free to stop by [FAN page] once the discussion starts in full. Hope to see you around! Strombollii (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale

Hi, you commented a few months ago about the recreation of Nicholas Beale after two AfDs. It has been recreated again, so I was wondering if you'd mind commenting here. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human equivelent

Yes, you are right. thanks. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrew-moles

Thank you. Chrisrus (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Militant Atheism

My inclusion of the number of deaths caused by Soviets not only provides an example of what militant atheism does, rather than purely a definition of the concept, but puts into context the actual significance of it. The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism has an entire section related to attacks and deaths and pages on the Nazism or the Holocaust will also cite figures. There is no valid reason to leave such key information out. I will be adding this back to the article unless you can provide an explanation of how it (statistics) is 'political' and why related areas of wikipedia include statistical information but this section shouldn't. Utopial (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_Semitism specifically cites the number of Jews killed by Nazis: "In Nazi occupied Europe, oppressive discrimination of the Jews and denial of basic civil rights, escalated into a campaign of mass murder, culminating, from 1941 to 1945, in genocide: the Holocaust.[48] Eleven million Jews were targeted for extermination by the Nazis, and some six million were eventually killed.[48][49][50]"
Leaving out such valid information is political, as it is deliberately concealing information that demonstrates the result and significance of this event. Utopial (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Replied at Talk:Antitheism. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hey there: a quick question for you: how does one go about linking to a sub category of a specific page? For instance, how would I link to "Hemorhagic stroke," which is a title on the Stroke page? Strombollii (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for. Decided to pick up where brain ischemia was left off during the AP Bio project. Strombollii (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009

This group should prove interesting... they seem at present very enthusiastic. Our first real challenge is topic selection! --JimmyButler (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fascinated by the whole idea of the project, and will watch it keenly. Although severely hampered by (a) lack of time and (b) ignorance, I'll do what I can to help, too. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Info / deletion notification

User talk:KatieW1992 A deletion notification was left on a student's talk page regarding "too much personal information". Might I request your thoughts on her bio.?--JimmyButler (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell's teapot

Please note that I have given reasons for my change in the talk page. Do not edit-war by reverting without discussing the matter in the article talk page.

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.TylerJ71 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. See this edit summary. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thin ice

Snalwibma, please reconsider your editing approach to this article. Edit-warring against good faith contributions is not acceptable, even when you're convinced the other editor has it wrong. I asked that editors of the article cease reverting and discuss the issues on the talkpage, after which you reverted again. The only reason you are not currently blocked is because you might not have seen the talkpage notice and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If in future you have a problem with a user's conduct that you can't resolve by talking to them about it, please choose dispute resolution or, if necessary requesting administrator assistance rather than revert-warring. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmph. You are right that I did not see the notice on the article talk page before I reverted the second time. But the reason I did it as a simple revert (with, however, a full explanation in the edit summary!) was because it is perfectly clear that a discussion on the talk page had reached (or was very close to reaching) a consensus about the way to resolve the disagreement. One editor appeared to disagree on some of the detail, but it seemed he was in general agreement - and then, after waiting a few days for it to "go off the boil" that editor did a wholesale revert to an earlier version that was clearly against the consensus. It did not seem worthy of further extended discussion on the talk page, it was so obvious! I take some exception to my defence of consensus, and reversion of an edit that is no longer a "good-faith" addition, being seen as edit-warring! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the editor's edit summaries, it seems clear that xe did not think as much of the discussion, or the presence of consensus, as you did – even if you were in the right, reverting again will not have been productive, because the other guy is of the same disposition. The only ways of putting a halt to edit wars is convincing your "opponent" not to war, convincing others and establishing a firm consensus (unlike the nascent, murky discussion in this case), or if you feel xe are repeatedly warring against firm consensus, seeking outside help. In any case, I'm sure your intentions are nothing but honourable and that you all can work it out over the coming week. Regards,  Skomorokh  14:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - but I hope you were not misled by the other guy's wholly inappropriate use of the 3RR template above (after I had only reverted his unilateral change once!) into thinking that I was engaged in anything like an edit war. Look at TylerJ71's edit history, and you will see a lot of confrontational behaviour in a remarkably short space of time! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the history of the article speaks for itself in terms of the distribution of reverts, and 3rr-warning the person you've just been reverting is a rather transparent tactic :).  Skomorokh  15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm chock-full of "quick questions"

I'm currently reviewing Rumination syndrome for GA, and have a stylistic question: I've seen issues raised that citations should not be present in the lead, as the introduction is used solely to introduce information stated (and cited) elsewhere in the article. Is this true? Strombollii (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and I'm afraid I have no "quick answer" to that one! Plenty of articles do have citations (sometimes lots of them) in the lead paragraph, even in the opening sentence. Not sure what the WP:MOS might have to say on the matter (and you are as capable of looking it up as I am!) - but my common-sense approach says it's a matter of what works in each particular case. Some topics (especially, perhaps, controversial ones where defining the topic is itself a matter of argument - see e.g. evolution or atheism) might need supporting references right from the start; others might be better with a gentle citation-free opening, with citations only further into the text. There - a cop-out! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A cop-out, but a very, very good one. Thanks! Strombollii (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Introduction to evolution/archive1

OK - remind me I'm staying out of this. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to evolution

It appears that there is an effort to delist this FA article. Any assistance or comments you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hypothetical situation

Thank you! :-) Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC) One student even claims to have seen Betsy's ghost, complete with her red dress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.200.222 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Sager

Hi, I saw your edit to the not-frequently changed Sidney Sager article. I'm interested - is he/that era/that area something you know about, or did you just stumble across it? I knew Sidney and played in his youth orchestra back in nineteen (coughing fit obscures words) and thought he was a great bloke. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I value my anonymity around here rather highly, so please excuse me if I don't give too much away - but yes, I knew Sidney well in Bristol from the 1960s, when a close family member played in his various orchestras. I last saw him in 1997, when he was 80. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me, what a small world. I do understand your privacy concerns (in fact, I am someone fabulously wealthy and famous in real life1) so I've emailed you. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Note 1 - not all statements necessarily 100% true.)[reply]

re afd on Denialism

Sorry, I overlooked your comment, I stated why the source you gave was not a good foundation on which to derive a definition (unless one does some creative cherry-picking). Basically it uses 'Denialists' in a very loose fashion, examples are on the afd page. Unomi (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might not want to get involved

But since you were there when the trainwreck happened . . . --Paularblaster (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


RFC discussion of User:CarolineWH

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CarolineWH (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH. -- Paularblaster (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Introduction to evolution

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

serial/series comma

"series comma" is actually the name for it that I was taught in grade school and I think it benefits the article to have it as an alternate name, but if you think it's too obscure I won't put it back in if you take it out. However, if it's left in, it gives the opportunity to use a serial comma in the very first line of the article to separate Oxford comma from Harvard comma, which I sort of like also. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 3RR

You have violated the 3 revert rule on the Militant atheism article. Please take your issue to the talkpage of the article as continuing to engage in a revert war may end in possibly having your edit priviledges suspended. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I have not. (b) Unlike you, I have taken my concerns to the talk page. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been reported for engaging in Edit Warring by violating the 3 revert rule. Please see notification here [1].LoveMonkey (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snalwibma. I have been watching the anti-atheist madness at militant atheism for a while but have been inactive so far. Just a word of warning because apparently you didn't get this advice yet: WP:3RR doesn't refer to 3 similar reverts, 3 reverts back to the same version or 3 reverts making basically the same change. It refers to 3 reverts of any kind whatsoever, so long as they are on the same page. Some admins even count uncontroversial reverts. On the other hand, a series of consecutive edits counts as a single edit for the purposes of 3RR. Hans Adler 16:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Point taken. I suppose by that definition I might be guilty, because I did (just about) do three amendments that consisted of deleting newly added material within a single 24-hour period. But you're right - it's madness! And it's getting more and more personal and nasty. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Pls stop edit warring, by deleting RS reviews of a book co-authored by NB, which is under discussion at the AfD for Nicholas Beale. It is not appropriate to delete it in any event, but especially disruptive as the article is up for AfD, and people are voting on it. The reason the information is notable is that the subject co-wrote the book. The fact that a much longer discussion of the book is present at the book article is certainly not reason to delete the summary discussion at the NB article. If you disagree -- instead of deleting, pls tell me the basis for your disagreement, and I will respond. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche just beat me to it, but I just wanted to point out that you both are slightly edit warring (based on [2][3][4]). No one has really broken a rule yet, but at this point neither of you should be reverting one another without further discussion (especially when you guys' edit summaries seem to be ignoring each other). Because of WP:BRD, I would suggest that you undo your own revert (thus restoring the article to the way it was before you first removed the content) and initiate a discussion on the talk page, but you're not technically under obligation to do so. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like a moth to a flame.

I composed a list of concerns Introduction to Evolution. They will likely be ignored. Other than losing the FA status --- what good came out of the re-write? Do you like it?--JimmyButler (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I'm officially taking a break from IntroToEvo - though I still can't resist the odd put-the-creationists-in-their-place impulse. And I did notice your self-flagellation on the talk page. To be honest, I haven't actually read all of the new version. I slightly regret the disappearance of Darwin and Mendel, complete with portraits - though maybe that was all a bit self-indulgent. After all, who cares about the history of ideas any more? The new version looks more utilitarian, less of an education designed to enrich lives, and more of a one-dimensional training exercise. Brutally functional and rather dull. And I certainly agree with you that "children" in the first sentence is dreadful. One day I'll find the time (and enthusiasm?) to look at it all again. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my wife threatened to leave me if I pursue this any further! Perhaps I need to join a group similar to AA.

Questions of Truth

Thanks for stepping in on the talk page, things were starting to get a little out of hand. Also, just so you know, I kind of cited you here (the WP:CHRISTIANITY diff), hope you don't mind. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - and I'm also delighted to be quoted (I thought what I said there was rather well-written!). But may I offer a word of advice? You do come across as a bit strident, and I can see how NB sees it as an attack. If I were you, I'd cool it a bit and let him hang himself. The objective evidence of misuse of WP is quite clear. There is no need to overdo it - which does run the risk of looking like hounding the poor man! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I will try to take it into account (although I can't make any guarantees). I might just have to give myself a day or so where I force myself not to look at Wikipedia—I think for the past 24-ish hours I've just been having a bad day, running into three unsavory editors more or less at once [5][6], which has put me in a foul mood. Maybe a short break will put some spring in my step.
Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to comment about the COI tagging (Talk:Questions of Truth#New tag)? I raised several points about this a few days ago, and was hoping for a real discussion, but the only person who ever responded was the disruptive editor User:Michael C Price, who is appears to be not much different from NBeale. That is also the only editor who has objected to the tagging, but I haven't added it back yet because I'm not interested in edit-warring and I'm not really interested in getting involved with these people again. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Militant atheism

As you know, this article was previously discussed at Edit Warring noticeboard. If you continue to revert the article without getting clear consensus for your changes on the Talk page, you may be blocked. The duty of getting WP:Consensus applies to all editors. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a sentence, and immediately posted detailed reasons for doing so on the article talk page. Another editor reinstated the sentence, stating in his edit summary that there was no objection to it on the talk page - which was simply untrue. I object to my carefully justified editing being described as edit warring. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post were on the talkpage the passage after it was suggested was specifically rejected. Also where you addressed it.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? meaning? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetpoet

Hi Snalwibma. Actually, I kind-of shot from the hip on this one. I initially mistook the edits for standard creationist watering-down, but now see that something (slightly) more interesting is being attempted (see here). I still don't see the edits as getting passed WP:UNDUE, but they're not quite what I initially thought. Anyway, I thought I'd better let you know in case I embroiled you too deeply in my fast-draw antics. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of your comments at Serial comma

Apologies - trigger-happy Palm Pre touchscreen. I must have hit rollback while scrolling. Mea Culpa. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amicable resolution

I offer my apologies for being overly flippant during our earlier discussion. Besides the fact that you've been here and have contributed for a while, it's out of character for me. Best regards, Airborne84 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for striking "trivial." For some reason, I took that as an assertion that my significant (good faith) efforts to provide a useful addition to the article was "trivial," even though I know it was likely not intended that way. I try not to take things personally, but in this case had a tough time with that word. I don't have a problem at this point in letting the double-space issue drop since it's taking up too much of my time anyway. If the editors' consensus in a few days is to remove, I can live with that. Right or wrong in any one person's opinion, that's the way Wikipedia has to run for now. Airborne84 (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of common misconceptions

Please explain, without blindly quoting policies, the difference between a misconception and myriads of obscure links that lead to the same false statement. Last time I checked, it is pretty much what constitutes a misconception. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in the title of the article is common. I deleted that thing about the virtually-unheard-of musician because it's not a common misconception, not because it isn't a misconception. But this sort of discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually unheard of... well, please familiarize yourself with the subject before making such remarks. Jaco Pastorius is one of the key figures in jazz and probably the most influential jazz bassist of all times. Now that we got that out of the way, how much is "common"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microevolution

The second paragraph is too ambiguous to have in the introduction. The clarification is between the misuse of the term is covered later but a small section should be included to better explain the difference between the two as this page is often used in Micro/Macro evolution debates. The clarification therefore needs to come early so as to avoid ambiguous wordings. I think combining those two paragraphs might actually be best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.253.3.150 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss a specific article, please do so on that article's talk page, not here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts

Having noticed the vandalism in the letter 'S' I am reverting all inappropriate edits by 220.253.200.73. Is that what you are doing? Or are you following me, and correcting my reversion mistakes? I'm a fairly experienced editor, but not in the area of vandalism and reversion. Sorry if my question seems obvious. Centrepull (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spitsbergen, again

Hi;
This seems to have run out of steam, a bit: I’ve left a post here to move things on a smidgen; what do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Thanks for your encouragement, BTW; it's handy to know we are on the right track, at least. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't and amn't

You had objection to moving amn't content into Ain't and I finessed this by renaming the article Ain't and amn't. I do think that the encyclopaedia is better served by a single article rather than multiple articles, but I agree that amn't is not a form of ain't. There is ongoing discussion on the Talk page, if you care to look in on it. -- Evertype·✆ 08:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put. -- Evertype·✆ 15:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate you taking a quick look at a compromise thought over at Ain't and amn't's talk page, and let me know what you think, if you wouldn't mind. Dohn joe (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Le jeu continue. Interesting anyway. Or sort of. (And your name is Welsh spelt backwards, isn't it...) -- Evertype·✆ 09:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just got your name - I like it. :) And next time I'm in Aberystwyth and see Ambiwlans in my mirror, I'll be sure to pull over. My first backwards Welsh word.... Dohn joe (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Spitsbergen

Every other article has its former name right beside its present name, as did this article before everything was reverted. Please do not vandalize the page again. Thank you. Jonas Poole (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?!!! Please engage in the discussion at the article talk page and remain cool. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sic (and lack of conciseness)

I admit I feel uncomfortable going back and forth with you on the article sic since I don't want to offend you. To be entirely clear, I more than appreciate your edits and admire your willingness to review the page with care and scrutiny. You have helped make the article so much better than I could have done alone.

Heh, I am probably hovering over that article like a mother bird to her egg—suspicious whenever it shifts but a hair... Can you blame me? I basically re-birthed the article in order to save its soul from wiktionary limbo. Still, I know I should try harder not to override you so often, especially since I know you've been reviewing the previous version of the article, plowing the dirt and sowing the seed for the current version well before I ever arrived on the scene.

Sorry if I have seemed smug regarding my expertise in the subject (... though, considering how much research I did in order to write that much on this particular subject and the sheer numbers of sources I read—not to mention those left uncited—I must say that I suspect I may know more about siccing overall than any two of the authors referenced in the article combined! Of course, pride aside, I had barely a cursory understanding of siccing just over a month ago...)

Anyhow, I will refrain from re-editing after you this time... I have this strange mental image of my being a mother who thinks that mother always knows what's best for our "sic" child, denying you of your parental rights as a father to tend to our child's ills... (forgive the odd imagery, as I am a poet by trade)

Nonetheless, regarding your most recent edit, I believe the word this has an unclear antecedent; it can appear to say A)that italicization is rarer in siccing today, or B)that italicization is rarer for foreign words in general today. B is obviously not what we intend to say, but that's how others may read it and I would prefer awkward wording over lack of clarity... What do you think? —CodeHydro 19:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda

Hi Snalwibma. Can I infer that you are a fellow Miranda fan?! Best wishes and happy Christmas. NBeale (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Yes - Merry Christmas... if you are good - Santa may give you your own Wikipedia article!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Smeathman

Happy New Year! Well I have started the new year with Henry. Thought you would be interested. I shall be putting up some facts from Braidwood's Black poor and White Philanthropists.Harrypotter (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

York meetup

Hi Snalwibma. Just to let you know there is a Wikimedia meetup being planned in York for Tuesday. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects interested in "Militant Atheism"

I understand that the Conservatism project, is not really necessary there (and I have not added it again in my previous edit), but I do not really understand why the WP:WikiProject Christianity (its sub-projects), and WP:WikiProject Islam cannot be mentioned (since the article contains information relevant to them). (Also, as far as I see, in the discussion from ANI it was considered that WP:WikiProject Conservatism was not necessary, but I do not see where it was decided to also remove the others.) Cody7777777 (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with fairly top-level Christianity and Islam projects - but why all those seventh-day adventists, lutherans etc? Why is this page especially relevant to them? And then, if Xtianity and Islam, why not also Hinduism, Shinto, etc etc? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Showing all these Protestant groups might not be necessary (although, some protestants could be interested about the "new atheist" writers). I think WP:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, WP:WikiProject Catholicism, WP:WikiProject Islam were shown since they have relevance especially in the the Soviet Bloc section (and the article also speaks there about actions taken against the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Evangelical Christian Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political Bias on Wikipedia

You should be aware of impending consequences as a result of deleting/hiding my comments on the Discussion Page of the Wikipedia entry on Evan Davis, and then blocking me from further edits. I am currently writing a piece for a national paper (to be published shortly) on the politics of Wikipedia editing, and how in particular certain political biases now operate. Although compiling instances of this in terms of anecdotal (indirect) evidence has not been difficult, obtaining primary examples (directly affecting me) has proved rather more elusive. Until now, that is, since you have inadvertently provided me with just the kind of illustration hitherto lacking of political bias on Wikipedia. It is my intention not just to name you and others in the forthcoming article, but also to detail the bias evident in the very language used to dismiss someone holding a different political viewpoint, then to delete/hide the latter, and finally to block its expression. Such bias is clear from the way deleting/blocking a different political viewpoint is dismissed as – among other things – “a rant”, “off-topic”, “stop playing silly games” and “delete rubbish”. This despite the fact that the case for the inclusion of a political context to Evan Davis’s career in the media, made by me and another contributor to the Discussion Page, went unanswered by you, notwithstanding its obvious relevance to an understanding of his current media prominence. By contrast, deliberations about Evan Davis’s sexuality (intrinsically more offensive to the subject of the Wikipedia article), an aspect which as I pointed out concerned no one but him, were left intact on the same Discussion Page. In short, a laissez faire approach which underlines the point I’m making: that your objections were to comment about Evan Davis’s politics, not his sexuality. I had intended to complain about your role in all this to Wikipedia, but this won’t now be necessary. When my article appears, I am confident that you will be called upon by the most senior people in the Wikipedia hierarchy to account for your actions in this episode. 14 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.226.2 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me have details of your article, when it is published, as I would like to read it. I don't think I've ever been accused of being a "Tory" before! But please try to understand - this is not about supprressing information, it's about misuse of a Wikipedia talk page. Talk pages are for discussing the content of the article, not for giving vent to personal opinion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation on my talk

Snalwibma, I just wanted you to be aware of a discussion on my talk page that evidently involves a user you were engaged in a content dispute with (at least in his mind). I wouldn't feel right responding to the User's comments without informing you of its goings-on. I have assumed good faith in my response and simply answered the questions as they were presented to me. If you would like me to clarify or expand on any comments because you believe they cast you in a poor light, please let me know, as this was not my intention. Thank you, Achowat (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for Arguments from

Have your concerns from 2006 been satisfactorily addressed in the six years since? I notice that you withdrew on the basis of a search results page. That argument has come up at AFD again, and I think it unsatisfactory myself. Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDMOS disease related articles have a specific layout of sections. Thus reverted your changes. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - OK, but Crab louse is (or should be) a zoology article about an animal, not a medical article about a disease - that's at Pediculosis pubis. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sic opinion

sidney

Hi Snalwibma, Of course "to informally as "Sidney"" is a split-infinitive...!!??? I don't intend to dispute your edit, but merely want to confirm my knowledge of English grammar :) Anyway, even if it isn't, the alternative 'informally referred to as' sounds much better and serene..:P--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  09:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... How can there be a split infinitive when there isn't an infinitive??? Where is the infinitive in the phrase "often referred to informally as Sidney"? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I thought 'to as' was an infinitive. It's alright if you want to keep it that way though...--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  09:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
!! I must admit I partially reverted your change mainly to say "WTF" about your split-infinitive comment - but I also do think that "referred to informally" is marginally better than "informally referred to". No real strong opinion, though. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it that way then...no issues. Cheers!--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  09:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shrewmole/moleshrew talk

Just a brief note that I've left you a late reply at Talk:Shrew_mole. Chrisrus (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (re my typos on the RD talk page)

Weird that I made that typo, I thought I copied and pasted, apparently not...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It would have looked more impressive if I'd got it right in one go! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtier's Reply

There seem to be problems with The Courtier's Reply, see also Talk:The Courtier's Reply In sorting these problems I think I need help from Wikipedians who are more familiar with the very complex rules and guidelines here than I am. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of challenged uncited deleted material

Please note that per wp:v, one should not restore challenged uncited material without providing an inline RS citation that directly supports the material. Thanks.---Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After much discussion here, on the article talk page, and in edit summaries I'm sorry to see that you have knowingly yet again violated a wp guideline by restoring challenged material without inline citations, in disgregard of wp:burden, and continued edit warring.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh stop being so childish. "Much discussion"? Huh! The proper place to discuss this is at Talk:Serial comma. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed to three places in which there has been discussion, including the article talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For writing Timothy Holroyde; nice to see another legal eagle here :). Ironholds (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hummingbird, maybe? ;p. Regardless, thanks for the great work :). Ironholds (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Navan Man for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Navan Man 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/Navan Man 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation other than a comma. Huh?

You recently undid my new talk section at Talk:Serial comma with the comment "I think you meant to put this on the talk page, not here". Which talk page? Didn't I put the new section on the Serial comma talk page? Are you saying that it should go on a different talk page? Or are you saying that my text somehow appeared in article space?

I'm posting this on your talk page, rather than simply reverting your reversion, because I don't like edit wars. (Also, since my section hasn't attracted comments in three weeks, I really don't care if it's deleted.)

If you agree, please undo your change. If not, please insert your comments below; I'll be watching. (As a side issue, you shouldn't revert any significant text on talk pages by other editors, as per WP:TALKO.) Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins

I noticed that you help to improve this article over the years via X!'s editcount tool. I have worked on the citations over the past few months and I am nearing the end of what else I can see to do to improve it. Please consider nominating this article for Featured Article status or at least for another peer review. Thanks.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Snalwibma. 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)[reply]

Removal of heart attack as reason at Cheick Tiote article

See the first paragraph after the first photo at TheGuardian. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but the Guardian is almost certainly simply wrong. Lazy journalists say "heart attack" (myocardial infarction) when they mean cardiac arrest, because they don't understand the difference between the two. The cause of death would have been cardiac arrest. That can in turn be caused by an infarction (normally due to blocked coronary arteries), but that is extremely unlikely in a fit 30-year-old. Much more likely to have been due to a cardiomyopathy or some electrical problem. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Snalwibma. 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)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<small><b>[[User:Snalwibma|<font color="darkblue">SNALWIBMA</font>]]</b> ( [[User talk:Snalwibma|<font color="2F4F4F"><b>talk</b></font>]] - [[Special:Contributions/Snalwibma|<font color="2F4F4F"><b>contribs</b></font>]] )</small> : SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs )

to

<small><b>[[User:Snalwibma|<span style="color: darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</span>]]</b> ( [[User talk:Snalwibma|<b style="color: #2F4F4F;">talk</b>]] - [[Special:Contributions/Snalwibma|<b style="color: #2F4F4F;">contribs</b>]] )</small> : SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs )

—Anomalocaris (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Snalwibma. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner?rel=hp_picks
  2. ^ http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationismInNorthernIreland