User talk:Audacity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hey! 2 warnwel 3 Hey, thanks! 4 Re: CSS for Template:Hidden messages 5 Adminship 6 You are now an admin ;-) 7 Audacity 8 Hey 9 The Barnstar of Diligence 10 Backmasking 11 Smile 12 Village Pump: Signatures 13 List of slang terms for poker hands 14 July 2007 15 Poker Slang - 99 16 Album Cover Fur 17 Confused 18 Thanks 19 hint 20 My postings 21 Your deletion from Ambigram 22 MUSTARD 23 Subcats 24 Plenty of reasons? 25 Fair use disputed for Image:Image:CocaColaHiddenPicture.jpg 26 Featured! 27 ScienceApologist and my talk page 28 Template lesson needs proofreading / copy-editing 29 TfD nomination of Template:HHW 30 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rain forwards.ogg 31 AfD nomination of Political hip hop 32 Classification of admins 33 Thanks (comment on Torah Codes) 34 A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR 35 Image:Zoso.svg 36 Help? 37 Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained 38 Bible code (important notes) 39 Speedy deletion of Template:Month-3 40 Excessive content removal at Bible code 41 Speedy deletion of Template:Verylongtalk 42 fastest cars by acceleration 43 Help With Ubiquity Records Page

[edit] Hey!

Under article List of Backmasking the chorus of My Name Is played backwards is Eminem I'm Slim here is a source http://jeffmilner.com/backmasking.htm

Replied at User talk:71.156.46.94. Λυδαcιτγ 05:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] warnwel

Thanks, Any other suggestions that you might have to improve it's usefulness? --.ιΙ Inhuman14 Ιι.^{( talk | contrib)} 01:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• That would be feasible... But I would have to learn a lot more coding than I already know. I'm up for a good challenge. --.ιΙ Inhuman14 Ιι.^{( talk | contrib)} 02:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, thanks!

Thanks Audacity for the barnstar. I think you've done a great job with the portal. I'm pretty technically challenged but I think I can take on a small part and help keep at least the FAC section updated. Anything else I can do for FP let me know. Cricket02 03:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: CSS for Template:Hidden messages

Hi, I'll take a look at the CSS, clean it up as best I can and make it vertically minimal yet still readable :-) I'll try to get it done soon. Thanks! trisweb (Talk) 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - with pretty much unanimous support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 12:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are now an admin ;-)

Congratulations, and good luck! «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 12:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Way to go! Congrats. The Transhumanist    17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar and the wolfs! (One of these days I'll put one of 'em on my user page ;-) ). One thing, is intentional that the barnstar is without your name, only the date? «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulation's! You've earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, good work; and, for the future, good luck. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thirded ~ Anthøny 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Anthony is aware that thirded is not even a word

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Just wanted to say congratulations of your new administration ship. One day, I hope to become one too. Agtaz 05:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audacity

Since your username is Audacity, does that mean your created the program? Or do you just enjoy using it? --The Juggla 13:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I don't know you, and you don't know me, but I came around here because you seem to be avery established user (you even have a badge) and I thought you might be able to help me find an admin, only to find that you are an admin. I was looking for some help on the Zutara article. It's an article about a ship in a TV show. By definition almost it cannot pass WP:V and its impossible to discuss the matter in a way that is not in-universe. I nominated it for deletion, but it was turned into a redirect to an article about a character in the show. Anyway, I've read that admins can simply delete articles. So, that's basically what I was looking for Millancad 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Millancad 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Λυδαcιτγ 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backmasking

My apologies. I was unaware of how the authentication was done (Blithering newbie as I am). When I find a printed reference, I'll include it. Thanks for your diligence. Unidyne 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

[edit] Village Pump: Signatures

I agree with the "instruction creep" reminder, even though I am frequently irritated by a few of the artful signatures that seem to shout "Look at me! look at me." (That is my problem, however, and not a reason to make a community rule.) I did want to know how we, as a community, can address the point or control it without making a rule; that is, unless the matter is left to persoanl choice, how can the "community" make its wish (to the extent that there is a consensus in the matter which is, I predict, unlikely) known without making a rule? Thank you for considering this question. While it follows from the approach you suggested at the Village Pump/Proposals, I don't feel its answer is relevant to anyone but me. If you disgaree, please feel free to copy this question and any response you may make, to the appropriate place in the discussion. Bielle 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have amended my comment on the Village Pump page, giving credit where due. Bielle 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of slang terms for poker hands

Thanks for the heads-up. I get this is what I get for explaining why I felt consensus was the way I felt it was. Cheers, WilyD 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, articles should not be moved, as you did to Colorado Springs, Colorado, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Note: Your opinion dosen't override Wikipedia policy. see WP:NC:CITY. WP:NC:CITY also overrides WP:MOS. Feel free to move the page back yourself, or another Admin can make the final decision. Description: "Moved Colorado Springs, Colorado to Colorado Springs." FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm a (little) less confused now. I couldn't move the page back myself, anyway, because a redirect page still exists at Colorado Springs, Colorado. Only an Admin could move it back. By the way, how do you get the "AAAAAAAA" behind the Wikipedia symbol like that? It's really cool!

--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 06:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, I clicked the link to Uncyclopedia in your userbox. That is the only page I like on it!

--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 06:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poker Slang - 99

Hi Audacity,

I've come over the term German Virgin several times, as well on-line as in real play. This is why I chose to submit it. I should have included a link off the bat, sorry for that.

I looked a bit further and found some other references, the main ones are: http://www.betyouraces.com/24.html and the German version of wikipedia, funily enough...

I will not submit it again, to avoid clogging up the edit page. I'll leave it up to you to include the term or not.

Thanks, Nol 83.83.78.182 00:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Nol. I'm not sure if I personally agree with this, but the consensus seems to be that most sites such as the one you linked to are not reliable sources for terms in the list. Other language Wikipedias are also not considered reliable sources because of their user-edited nature. Λυδαcιτγ 03:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album Cover Fur

Note that there are images like Image:Jackiedeshannon.jpg which want to transclude the "Purpose" text to expand on a non-standard "Use". Your changes just broke this. Twice. Jheald 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that came out harder than I meant it to. But it is quite good to be able to use "Purpose" to expand on the standard use texts in various circumstances (including the case of a bespoke use tag). Jheald 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Though, to be fair, there are only 4 images that I've rationaled that do this; so it might be easier just to decide what the template should do, and then re-write the rationales accordingly. Jheald 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The last few edits have broken the "Infobox" use, which is mission-critical. Can I suggest Template:Album cover fur/development for test versions? Jheald 19:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer my last version, with the user-expanded "purpose" added after the first two sentences, or after the boilerplate for a standard "use". What was your issue with this? Jheald 19:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

How do you become an administrator, and what do they actually do?

Danielspencer91 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for explaining moderators to me and helping me out with my article and stuff. Danielspencer91 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hint

Where can a person go to upload wavefiles or such for others to check out? Logognosis 23:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My postings

While I would agree that with those postings I am promoting a website, it is a wiki project, and I believe directly relevant to the pages I have posted them on. I have not posted them on article pages, only talk pages, where people can discuss things and I don't see what's wrong with it. As I say, it is a relevant and worthwhile wiki project that obviously I cannot do by myself. It needs more people to help, and the most effective way to let people know about something they may be interested in, in my opinion is what I've done. DMajj 11:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletion from Ambigram

You gave the edit summary: rv: page didn't even load for me

While there are probably a few reasons the link to that site probably doesn't belong there, that a site is temporarily down isn't one of them. -- Smjg 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's permanent, as I'm now getting a 404 error from the site. But you're right that if the only issue was a temporary problem with the site I would have commented it out. I was implying that beyond the other reasons for not keeping it - specifically, the consensus that there are far too many ambigram sites to link to all, and that links shouldn't be added without discussion - the page was broken. I'm not sure if the anon editor whose link I deleted will ever read my summary, but I suppose I should have explained further just in case. Λυδαcιτγ 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The site works for me as I try it now. That suggests it's an intermittent problem, and you happen to be catching it when it's down. But if you catch it when it's up, you'll see that it actually isn't an ambigram site, but a commercial site whose logo just happens to be an ambigram. Hence it was probably right to remove it - you just didn't give the right reason. Still, it's something to consider next time you remove a link.... -- Smjg 17:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MUSTARD

Thank you so much for the help on MUSTARD. would you be so kind as to protect the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Usage and the Sophomore pages? violetriga keeps changing them to his/her standards, and it's becoming quite frustrating. Bouncehoper 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help! Bouncehoper 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

...hello there again. were you under the impression that the compromise made would involve the inclusion of sophomore in linked instances? that was my impression. i hate to keep bringing this crap up, cuz DAMN am i tired of it, but i just need to know if i'm in the wrong here or not. Bouncehoper 07:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

ok. that's a little bit different than what i thought. so why is violetriga still reverting things?

Bouncehoper 17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah you're right. thanks, dude. Bouncehoper 05:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subcats

Subcats are crucial for readability, stop getting rid of them.

You nazi.

[edit] Plenty of reasons?

What "plenty of reasons?" That 78% of U.S. cities require dabbing? So what? A high percentage of films require dabbing too, that doesn't mean we dab all films. What other reasons? --Serge 01:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it, none of those "reasons" are unique to cities. They are just as true for any other article. I don't get it. --Serge 04:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least Scott admits that he thinks cities SHOULD be treated differently from how other articles are currently treated, and even goes so far as to say that many other articles should be treated the way he thinks cities should be treated. But most of the other defenders of the comma predab convention don't even seem to acknowledge, or perhaps even recognize, the significance of all this. So it's hard to agree to disagree with them. --Serge 05:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "defenders of the comma predab convention [who] don't even seem to acknowledge, or perhaps even recognize, the significance of all this", check out this entry. --Serge 07:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Image:CocaColaHiddenPicture.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image:CocaColaHiddenPicture.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured!

Yay, we're now officially featured! :-) Thanks for all your help in getting us there! Best, Madder 19:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist and my talk page

Hi Audacity,

You're familiar with SA's actions on my talk page. They certainly seemed like vandalism at the time (espc since the thing is not a personal attack on anyone), but now reading WP:VANDAL I'm not sure whether or not it meets the technical definition- mainly because technically SA could have really believed that was a personal attack. On the other hand, looking at the whole situation, maybe one would have to be quite a wikilawyer to say it wasn't vandalism. I'm being asked to offer him an apology for calling him a vandal. What do you think? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be sincere if I'm wrong. I just don't know that I am. Need second (neutral) opinion, which is why I came to you. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: See this. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template lesson needs proofreading / copy-editing

Hi Audacity. A new lesson on templates has been written for the Virtual Classroom. It needs some advanced template users/designers to look at it before it goes live (that is, before I announce it all over the place). I was hoping you would take a look at it: User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Scartol, on Template use and design. I hope to see you there. Sincerely, The Transhumanist    04:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:HHW

Template:HHW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Domthedude001 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rain forwards.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rain forwards.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Political hip hop

Political hip hop, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Political hip hop satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political hip hop and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Political hip hop during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ridernyc 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of admins

Hi Audacity. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (comment on Torah Codes)

Thanks for leaving a comment about my work.

Curious, was there a particular edit or addition that caught your attention?

riverguy42 (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

The guinea pigs having said this is good enough, I'm working my way through the A's ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Zoso.svg

If you believe that this image is non-free, then see to it that it is removed from the Wikimedia Commons, otherwise, it is free-use across this project in any namespace. — Save_Us_229 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

I picked you out randomly. Can you point me to someone that has expertise in templates? I want to change a template parameter to a new parameter but preserving the old parameter. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

[edit] Bible code (important notes)

Audacity, FYI on the "codes" and primary sources as editors, please review this characterization of the WRR authors from Brendan's partner in MBBK, psychologist and MBBK co-author Maya Bar Hillel. Please consider Brendan's complaints of "bias" in the context of MBBK's own "bias", especially as Bar Hillel is on record as saying (from my memory) "it does not matter what evidence is presented, I do not and will not believe it". Editor Brendan McKay comes with a highly biased POV and a severe WP:COI, and the recent tags added to the article are already problematic. Please keep the article on your watchlist. WNDL42 (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Month-3

A tag has been placed on Template:Month-3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive content removal at Bible code

Audacity, appreciate your attention to the matter, but you are acting too quickly in response to a primary source's complaints.

(1) Please remember that the "other side" is not represented here. I am in the process of contacting through private e-mail some 'semi-disinterested' parties to comment on Brendan's complaints. His issues are important and deserve consideration, but my extensive (10 year) research history in the topic leads me to the considered opinion that they are mostly baseless.

(2) McKay's POV is highly biased and does significant "harm" to the WRR editors, if the article continues to be a coat rack for McKay, as it has been since McKay himself created the article. As McKay is the "attacker" of WRR authors, his POV needs very careful scrutiny. The most important BLP considerations here are protecting the WRR authors from additional damage, under the "do no harm" clause.

(3) Brendan's vague complaints about a "POV" he does not care for do not justify the extensive edits and content removal you performed. His specific complaint can be dealt with by changing three words. His further specific complaints (should he cite any) can be dealt with similarly.

I am well researched and well connected on the topic, I'd ask you allow me to lead this, if you will be so kind. WNDL42 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Audacity... FYI, in the brief period of time before McKay posted his complaint, there were three separate anonymous IP edits, one at least ID'd as suspected vandalism. It's common for primary sources to be a bit sneaky in this regard, McKay (creator of the article) can be expected to be a bit frustrated about losing "control" of the article, so we should be aware that this may possibly not be as entirely "above board" as it appears...fyi see these edits, which appear to be representative of the MBBK POV.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note on my talk page...

For now, let me say here that I don't agree that the section removed (which had it's basis in McKay's own original POV version) was "full of POV" except to the extent that it balanced the MBBK POV with the WRR POV. When I found the article, there was a strongly WP:UNDUE weighting in favor of the MBBK POV, and further...what was there somewhat mischaracterized both MBBK and WRR. It was obvious to me that what I found reflected and carried the bias of McKay's original entry, gave undue weight to criticisms of Drosnin, strangely made no mention of Satinover, (which is the only treatment that approaches "scholarly", IMO. In summary, the article I found was merely carrying forward the original MBBK bias to the extent that it was a WP:COATRACK for the MBBK POV. I believe that my first round of edits corrected some serious distortions, such as this:

"The McKay paper did not go so far as to accuse Witzum and Rips of falsifying their experiment, instead it argues that the ELS experiment is extraordinarily sensitive to very small changes in the spellings of appellations. This fact, when combined with available wiggle room, was exploited by McKay et al. to duplicate the Genesis result in a Hebrew translation of War and Peace."

The above two sentences are a nicely weasle-worded, but utterly false statement. De-weasled, the statement above says "MBBK didn't say WRR cheated, it merely showed how their result was false by demonstrating the exploitation technique they used to achieve their false positives", which is, politely, horse mess. MBBK was an entirely unsubtle accusation against WRR of cheating, pure and simple. The evidence for this is Bar Hillel's "Maddness in the method", which I hope you've read carefully.

BTW, I like some of USER:Jimbo Wales edits to the article, like this, and I think that whatever changes are needed are at that level of subtlety. WNDL42 (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Verylongtalk

A tag has been placed on Template:Verylongtalk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fastest cars by acceleration

I have removed the Hennessy Viper amongst others from this list as I dont think they are suitable as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automotive_superlatives - as the editor who put the Hennessy in there, I thought it would be polite if I informed you of my edit. I am not doubting the Hennessy's ability to get from 0-60 in the stated time, I just dont think it is a true production car as per wikipedias guidelines, however I am interested in your opinion in this matter.Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help With Ubiquity Records Page

Hey not sure how to talk to people but im trying to launch the follownig page i have ben working on. Here is the link to the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Y2klol/Ubiquity_Records

thanks User:y2klol —Preceding comment was added at 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)