User talk:Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive6

Troublemaker?

I see you're trying to bring down the scientific establishment. Or prop it up. Or something. :) Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:ExpertContributionSection

A tag has been placed on Template:ExpertContributionSection 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.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Twenty Eight (Band)

I have nominated Twenty Eight (Band), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twenty Eight (Band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Trusilver 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on AfD

Hi Kim, in relation to your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination), could you possibly provide a rationale for your recommendation? If you are agreeing with someone else's view, it would be useful to say so. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged books

I am reraising an issue on challenged books not belonging on the banned books page. See here. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Used you as an example

I hope you don't mind, I used your experience as an example in an essay I just wrote containing what I hope are my final thoughts on the Arb case [1]. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CalenderWatcher

CalenderWatcher has violated the 3RR here [2], here [3], here [4], and here [5] and has assumed bad faith on the article talkpage. The user was edit warring with an IP back and forth over the inclusion of the edit wherein which CalenderWatcher thought it oughta be removed as it wasn't sourced. I tried to come up with a compromise and explained my reasons for it on the article talkpage here [6] but the user simply reverted it again while accusing me of spite and assuming bad faith. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for letting me know. Cheers! =) Cheers dude (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're somewhat mistaken: it's not unilateral edit-warring--or, until the involvement of User:Cheers dude, really edit-warring at all. This IP's antics have been going on for months--and he's been reversed by other editors. The various IP talk pages have been left multiple messages--including in Japanese--regarding the basic requirements (such as here and here, and even been blocked, but he has continued to add sub-literate, entirely unsourced entries. The IP, in fact, has never responded directly, and doesn't even seem to understand, as his only reaction has been either to add a clause to the beginning of each entry (of the form 'According to the Times of India,...') but still without the slightest actual source or to include a {{fact}} tag as part of the original entry, despite the fact that he, presumably has some source for this information he is adding.

The only way that this has become 'edit-warring' is the involvement of User:Cheers dude, and that appears to be petty retaliation for the advice he has been given--by several editors including myself--that he not make long, effusive, and completely unhelpful comments on matters on WP:AN/I before he understands either the situations he's commenting on or the policies that apply. See here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_ask_your_admin_friend_to_stop_his_personal_attacks, and especially Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#block_of_User:Roobit and here. Over a fifth of his edits in his fortnight as a named editor have been to WP:AN/I, and it hasn't gone unnoticed. I'll also note that one editor at WP:AN/I has described this as what it is, namely spite]. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budgerigar

The topic of "English" budgies is covered in the article already. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reprints

Thank you so much for the offer of the reprints, but I think I'm fine at the moment (still digesting Christidis & Boles more fully). Good luck with the trees - they sound like a great idea! Frickeg (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Dear sir, would it be possible for you to review the recent posts made about (=against) my person on the RFC? I do not want to point the finger at any one person, but I thought initiating a RFC did not mean that I gave carte blanche for personal attacks against me to go explode into great numbers? --Law Lord (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage vandalism and incivility

Hi again, I'm not too sure on what to do about talkpages in terms of inappropriate comments that don't exactly relate to improving the articles. I've already removed the first comment the IP made (hope I didn't do anything wrong by doing that) which I thought was vandalism but they came and made a similar remark. I'm not sure if this is a reason to remove comments and if I did the appropriate thing, but the IP has since returned. Here, [7], here [8]. I'm not sure what these remarks have to do with improving the article either by this user, here [9], and here [10]. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...Just let it be?! Insulting wikipedia users by calling them 'wikinerds' and 'idiots' before discussing something that had nothing to do with the article [11] but how users of wikipedia "have no life"? I think that violated multiple rules on the [12] Wikipedia Guidelines page. Unsure of why you don't think that's not interfering with making an encyclopedia. This [13] account doesn't look like a fly-by passing to me. Other admins have even found reason to give him warnings as shown here [14] because he's been vandalizing other pages as well. I'm just respectfully letting you know that I disagree with your advice and I feel you should have taken a more active role towards this vandal than just telling me not to react. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! It's no problem. At first glance, it actually looks exactly how you describe. Your advice about fly-by accounts was smart. I just won't give them the attention they want and move on. Anyways, thanx for being a kind enough to reply back. Merry Christmas KimvdLinde. =) Cheers_Dude (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For, in spite of your being an administrator yourself, promoting the view that some administrators do in fact lack manners. Law Lord (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, just to late

Darn, I only found out today about DYK has a limit of 5 days, and I creatd a nice article 6 days ago Nestoridae (23:29, Dec 23).... O well... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters that much because the current articles are backlogged and the dec23 lot are still on the queue. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. If the Kakapo is not in the Nestor genus, what's it doing in the Nestoriae article? Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay, I think I've managed to confirm that to my satisfaction now, after checking several of the relevant articles. I think that hook will be fine to go now. Nice to see you still around BTW :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nestoridae

On 3 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nestoridae, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 00:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CalendarWatcher

While I am retired and have no interest in further editing here at Wikipedia mostly because of user CalendarWatcher's shenanigans, this vicious page may interest you [15] with insulting remarks about you and myself . Apparently since I retired on the 3rd of January, CalendarWatcher thinks I am holding a "vendetta" against him which he came and responded about on the fifth of January [16] on my page with Shapiro. Cheers_Dude (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! Fair enough! Even though I'm absolutely sick and tired of this person clearly trying to start up with me, he won't be getting the reaction he so desperately wants. I'm done! Btw, I have some suspicions about similar antics going on in other areas of the net which actually led me to that page but whatever. Anyways, he'll be being ignored. If it keeps up, I'm going to ask someone to just delete my account entirely so to end his nonsense though. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'This response is exactly what he wants'

Your astounding bad faith and lack of mind-reading skills does you no credit whatsoever. For the record, User:Cheers dude left a series of falsehoods on his 'mentoring' page before skittering off and I simply responded there and nowhere else: that absurd and hysterical page Cheers dude points to is a forgery--and given how quickly he 'found' it, I suspect it's the work of Cheers dude himself. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, both of you (and many others, it seems) have fallen victim to the long-banned user and sockpuppeteer EverybodyHatesChris, who has resurfaced as "Cheers dude". The account has now been blocked. --Ckatz^chat _spy 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, KimvdLinde. It looks like Cheers dude's only purpose here was stirring up trouble. More to be pitied than scorned, really. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parrots of New Guinea

Papua New Guinea has got more parrots than New Zealand. The phylogeography of Parrots of New Guinea might be interesting. Snowman (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horse (1)

FWIW, Evolution of the horse and some other articles (Equidae, Equus (genus), etc.) are getting some much needed attention too. Care to join us? --Una Smith (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HIW

Hi Kim, glad to see you around again. Don't know if you recall being one of my original mentors when I started on wikipedia two years ago. Anyway, at HIW, we have a classic case of your concerns of "...while the good editors and experts will leave Wikipedia disgruntled..." At least for me. Not ready to bail yet, but definitely disgruntled! LOL! There was a happy community at the HIW article with about four or five active editors trying very hard to bring an article to FA, until basically two people charged in and have changed the tone of everything. (See the last archived peer review as well as the current talk page for recent history) One has made some small but legitimate contributions, I admit. But the problem here is that both of them have tangled with me before, and while I really didn't want "personalities" to be involved, I fear they are, which makes me rather sad, and yes, disgruntled. But over these last couple of years, I have found that the admins are, by and large, a very good grop of folks if they have the whole thing in front of them. So, let's say that there is more going on here than the last two weeks, and thus I hope you keep an eye on HIW with an understanding of the big picture. (smile) Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 16:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Una Smith and unilateral moves

I suppose the first step is to politely ask her to undo it, but, please, then just post at AN/I and warn her. It's time to make an impression that Wikipedia is edited by consensus. --18:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Equus ferus ferus

Hi Kim, maybe I am dense or something, but I wonder if the Tarpan (as a redirect) issue is now settled. I notice that the article is still called Equus ferus ferus. I thought the original request was "It has been proposed below that Equus ferus ferus be renamed and moved to Tarpan." I was not involved in any of the discussions and do not have a stake in the outcome but I like to see consensus followed through. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Thanks, - Josette (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to let me know. - Josette (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior

Kim, your ad hominem remarks addressed to me, and about me, really need to stop. For example, your edit summaries:

--Una Smith (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, they are accurate descriptions of what is going on. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ad hominem attack is one that is unjustified and inaccurate. Kim's comments have been more than gracious and in this case, the truth is a defense. Una, do not threaten other editors. You know better than this. The completely unjustified WQA and AN/I you filed against me both failed, resoundingly, and you yourself were the subject of an AN/I not a month ago that simply died of total exhaustion. If it has not occurred to you that you are on very thin ice with a number of people whose patience has worn very thin, well, consider this useful data. Back off from these attacks on other editors, particularly experienced, long-serving, respected ones such as Kim. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montana, no worries, I do not feel attacked, rattled or anything. I understand that Una is very passionate about what she thinks is the truth, something I definitely understand. As long as everybody remains friendly, and assumes good faith, I think we will be able to get along. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

Sorry for the error. I should know by now that an editor with a gender-neutral name who contributes to horse articles is female. I should also learn to look at user pages! --Curtis Clark (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just lurking. We horse editors are often female. Question: are we all also kind of persnickity and opinionated? (laughing, running and ducking...). Montanabw^(talk) 00:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I am guilty as charged..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I learned it was, "Cowgirls...You can't tell 'em nothin'." I don't have a problem with that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you can ALWAYS tell us, you just can't tell us much! ;-D!! Montanabw^(talk) 05:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas always the girls that were drawing horses at school....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horse

Thanks for the Welcome Wagon duties, it's not something I'm good at! (And I'd be better if the carpet layers weren't here pounding on the staircase putting in carpet... ouch!). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horses

Oh. Well, I have written proof. You can go look in the Bible in the first chapter of Genesis that God created land dwelling animals on the sixth day. How can I incorporate that into the article?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well...you have a point. One thing that would help me is to know what an...Asteur? is. Sorry if I mispelled it. I could try to fix all the creation stories in that one article, but I don't know when I would get to that. How to resolve it, I don't know. What are your ideas?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Bible is filled with God's wonders. In fact, none of them contradict themselves. They all flow perfectly. I find that a fiction books almost always has at least 1 glitch, although most I don't discover until I am being very nit picky. If you want proof, look outside. The trees, the birds, the snakes, the dogs, they all are living proof that creation is not a myth. Even we are a part of that.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I believe that you misunderstood me. The only reason the stories should contradict each other is because they were interpereted incorrectly or written wrong. But God is never wrong.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm not meaning to offend you. Rats my tongue! Why can't I keep it still and think first? Well, I have no I ideas on how to resolve it, but I think, until we have come up with a conclusion, that we shouldn't edit things like the Horses page based on our beliefs. Do you think that is alright for now?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding me. I am sorry if I offended you. Everyone has their own different belief system and I need to learn to honor that, whether I agree or not. I hope that you are not angry with me.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. I don't like hurting others. I have a tendancy to love everyone. Even though there are some things about people that I don't care for as much, I can't hate anyone. It's murder!!--God'sGirl94 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymy

Hi KimvdLinde, the synonyms field in the taxobox does not make a distinction between an ambiguous synonym and an unambiguous synonym. As a fair amount of older literature refers to the Black Drongo as Dicrurus adsimilis, I believe it should exist as a synonym there, a compromise could be to add it as Dicrurus adsimilis macrocercus. Shyamal (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donkeys

Oh great goddess of taxonomy, the donkey article is now dealing with scientific names. You may wish to step in. So far all is civil. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonkey&diff=275589885&oldid=275493252 . Montanabw^(talk) 17:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The happy blue ball of gratitude

Thanks greatly for adding ref to Brachygobius nunus. I had reply all ready to go about "We take info off municipal websites when the material is obviously written by an amateur rather than a professional historian. We take information from newspapers written by a college intern who writes about hang gliding one day and Chinese opera the next" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Now you forced me to walk away and follow my own advice: "Wrestle articles, not editors." Good thing too...I need those same editors to approve my hooks in the future rather than looking for an reason to send my work to AfD! Best wishes.--Boston (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Thick-billed parrot

On March 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thick-billed parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions proposal

Hi. You may be interested in a minimal flagged revisions proposal focused on BLPs I am working on. FR may seem dead, but I think we can gain consensus on something small and focused. If you have time, any comments are appreciated. Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nudge nudge....

I reckon Eos (genus) actually isn't too far off GA...wanna prioritize the phylogeny while the iron is hot, so to speak :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nestoridae map

Hi, I like your recent work on the Nestoridae articles. I was concerned about one aspect of your File:Nestoridae-dist.png Nestoridae distribution map, though. The Chatham Islands seemed to be too far south; they are at roughly same latitude as Banks Peninsula. I've had a go at fixing this by hand. Just thought I would let you know. Thanks, Avenue (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your message on my talk page until after posting this. I hope it explains what I thought was wrong, anyway. Here is another map showing the correct position of these islands. -- Avenue (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor point, but could you please change the "Chatham Island" label in the map to "Chatham Islands" (plural)? Usually they are referred to in the plural unless one is making a point of restricting it to just the main island (i.e. it implies they were only present on the main island). Given the colouration of Pitt Island on the map, I don't think that's what you meant. -- Avenue (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great. Thanks for also moving Norfolk Island; it seemed wrong to me before, but it was close enough that I wasn't sure it was wrong. Now it lines up with the North Auckland peninsula, as I'd expect. -- Avenue (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A challenging map...

Hello Kim - I will take you up on your offer with Australian Magpie - 8 subspecies with some overlap. Would that be ok? Much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Meant to add I will email maps and references if OK. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it going? I am just about ready to nominate the article at WP:FAC. Much appreciated in advance, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know - it is much appreciated. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snort Barfly

I do not understand your behavior regarding Wikipedia Editor Snort Barfly. Chris Buckey (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:No flagged revisions; no vandal fighting

Category:No flagged revisions; no vandal fighting, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horse

Seeing as your kinda our expert on taxonomy issues, might checking over this article and telling us how bad it is? I'm slowly working it up towards FAC, and an experts' eyes on it would be nice. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dittoes. Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I/P articles

Kim, you and I have had our differences, but I wonder if you'd nevertheless take a look at this suggestion, as someone who has commented on I/P issues. [17] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this preliminarily is a better way to go, and support/oppose/comments garnered here. PS. Are you still okay to do Australian Magpie map? (crosses fingers, birds are much more relaxing than middle east relations...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I was hoping you'd comment --> here <--. arbcom can't dictate content but I tried this initative to at least stamp out some of the more concrete arguments and set some in stone, but the response has been slow. Not sure how to get more community input (bangs head on keyboard) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated response

Hello, Vanished user 19794758563875. You have new messages at Vassyana's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SV

Last year's arbcom voted that SV's bit would be automatically restored after six months. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of "Natural selection"

As part of the GA review sweeps process (see:Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007), the article Natural selection has been re-reviewed. I have placed the article on hold until sufficient citations can be added to the article. If an editor has not expressed interest in improving the article within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive6's Day!

User:Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive6 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive6's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Vanished user 19794758563875/Archive6!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.

July 05 for you. Sorry for lateness, I had to take a wikibreak. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits

Yes it is. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

glossary project

Kim, would you like to look over the taxonomic (and other) definitions at the new glossary of equestrian terms and add/correct/edit anything that you think needs fixing? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tucuman or Tucumán Amazon

I am not sure how the "Tucumán" was derived. Is it named after a person? I think the IOC WBL name has the spelling "Tucuman Amazon". Snowman (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IOC name is without accent, but the discussion is still going about that aspect. It comes from tghe Tucumán Province. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self referncing

The cat about exceptions is about our standards, so it should go on the talk page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't know that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Turquoise-fronted Amazon

See my support for the move back here. Now, after posting that, I find myself with a question. Is 'Turquoise-fronted Amazon' in fact a brand new name that the IOC have recently thought up, as the number of Google Scholar hits for the term does seem suspiciously low. On the other hand, one of the results is apparently dated 1992... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're not gone forever

Saw you briefly retired and then un-retired. Glad you're back. When you get frustrated with the cat herding world of wiki, just drop me a line and I'll help you commiserate! We need ya! :-) Montanabw^(talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users talk page

I note your edit on a users talk page. I had courteously told the new user about the discussion that User Shyamal had started on the main talk page about the many external links added. I really do not see what was wrong in asking for more parrot photographs on the wiki, and I am told that he had given photographs to the wiki in the past. I also think that you were rather too critical of me, perhaps leading the new user to think that the WikiProject was somewhat dysfunctional. I also think that you were scapegoating me. I have illustrated many pages with photographs and I am keen to help the wiki find more photographs, and I feel that your edit belittled me and my request on this users talk page. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, nobody denies that you have done great work. But, first of all, I only commented oin this issues at the talk page of Arthur AFTER it had fully escalated. Get your time line straight. What is wrong on asking a person at one hand for pictures and at the same time chastising him for adding links to those same pictures. Shyamal ONLY asked about HOW to format the links, and you start smacking around with policy such and policy so, and run the person off. So, stop being the victim and take responsibility for your actions and the effects they have. Quite frankly, the way you keep responding, and the lack of insight you have in the way you are reacting and the effects it has, it gives me the feeling that I am talking with someone who has Asperger's syndrome or something related. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:ExpertContribution

Template:ExpertContribution has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horse

Thanks for your help on the horse and domestication articles. I made some tweaks based on the articles I read, and if there are discrepancies with your understanding of current research, just explain how you see it and we can sort it all out. I'm also concerned about readability in the horse article (the domestication one can be more technical as it isn't a general interest piece). Montanabw^(talk) 04:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer that you don't want to be involved. I know you aren't a fan of conflict and lots of arguing, I'm just kind of pushing to get to what actually IS the current state of various studies. You actually know what you're talking about, it's just getting it into a form that makes sense to the rest of us non-scientist types. That and letting us down easy if our myths must be crushed. (LOL) Do reconsider and let me know if my tweaks totally screwed up everything...the way I read it, many mares became founders of domesticated lines, but between wild stallions and the difficulty keeping tame ones, there were far fewer stallions. Seems the obvious conclusion based on wild herd dynamics today. Am I totally off base here? Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right general picture. And instead of starting the section with details about how you do the research, it should start with the general picture. Jansen is by now an old study, several more recent studies have used his data plus many more including ancient DNA samples making the picture much stronger. and in a way are much more reliable. Also, the evolution of the horse section is really misleading at places. The prewalski is not a separate clade. It arrises square from the middle of the domesticated/wild horse clade. Based on the genetic material, NO subspecies should be recognized. Finally, Lira is really just a speculation:

These results suggest the possibility of an independent domestication episode or the use of Iberian maternal lineages in a restocking process from the wild. Whether such a process qualifies as a conventional domestication event, or simply reflects a recurrent phenomenon of restocking, in which mares were incorporated into domestic herds brought from elsewhere, will require nuclear DNA analysis and a more detailed knowledge of the genetic structure from the earliest Iberian domestic herds.

But I know, many think it would be so nice if it were true. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to make sense, some of those articles are more technical than my own background can easily interpret (and my background is law, so I usually can read tough stuff, but...), I appreciate your making this more understandable. By the way, also I like the way you summarized the older four foundations theory in the horse article, and would be OK with something similar being done in the domestication article. I wish I had some sense of what current theories are now out there on these basic body types, because the various breed registries are still making claims that their particular breed is pure and unbroken back to the first mare that was tamed by the first neolithic villager! And what I also don't quite know what to do with the whole landrace concept, I had never heard of it prior to wikipedia, and not sure if there is a better English word for this (we don't call a breed a "race" in English, normally, wonder if there's another term?). Fascinating study, that's for sure. Montanabw^(talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you see with the body types is that they do not really cluster nicely together but have arisen multiple times. At the level of mtDNA, few breeds can claim to be uninfected by other vbreeds, reality is that most breeds are crossed with other breeds. With landraces, think breeds that are largely left alone most of the time with nature determining for a large part which individuals will survive winter, reproduce etc, as opposed to breeds that are carefully bred each generation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Kim, please don't get too upset here, I'm writing it as I see it. Seemed like the 2002 study was pretty sound, if its been superceded, then the trick is to use ONE source, not 6 or 8, and explain a little bit. To just say "it's been discredited," well, fine, who, when, in what way? And sometimes there are still useful chunks. I really AM trying to get at the current understanding of things here, but in my real life, it's my job to question all the evidence and not take people's word for it. But unfortunately I also have a very slow dialup at home, which is usually when I work on wiki, and it is not easy for me to download, read and digest a whole slew of scientific articles, especially outside my field, hence why it is helpful for others to explain and not get snarky. What I'm saying is don't give up, just try to work with us to make it understandable. Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user 19794758563875. You have new messages at Talk:Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deir Yassin

I’ve had 20 or so amateur bouts. During the course of my martial arts training, my fights and other “excursions,” I sustained a permanently dislocated collar bone, a compound fracture of my humerus bone, a shattered tib/fib, severely comminuted and displaced as well as a Trimalleolar fracture with dislocation. In sum, I’ve gone through more injuries than what most people see in a life time. I’ve got more plates, screws and rods in me than a construction site. So please, don’t make me laugh with your silly implied threats.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implies threats? Where? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I see. No, this is not an implied thread, but just making clear that some type of POV-warriors are just not wanted at wikipedia. And really: The pen is mightier than the sword. Aka, if you think you impressed me with your injuiry list as a way of telling how much you actually have been involved in actual violence, yawn. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impress you? Don't flatter yourself. You're not that important.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, glad to hear that you did not want to impress me. I really loathe people who think that they have to impress people with their injuries. Kind of masochistic. Glad you are not like that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 09:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim -- agree w/the points you made.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, animations?

Hi Kim,

So, any idea what happened to all the animations in commons? We have that Muybridge one all over, that's quite a loss. Any idea how to fix them or get them restored? Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add my voice to Slim's here ... I think that's reasonable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection worked out just fine even though there is probably never any "right" version here. It looks like a few of us have come to some agreement. Another day or so of protection might even get some more discussion going without editors getting bogged down in reverts. On a side note, your user page was a good read.Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, I will look at the page and if there is an agreement, I will gladly unprotect. My experience with these pages is that if you protect for 24 hours, they just sit it out and go again as soon as it goes again. I think that if people at this page would adhere to the add, revert, discuss cycle, many issues could be solved quickly. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your comment in support: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FTalk%3ALGBT_parenting%2FFAQ&action=historysubmit&diff=381907543&oldid=381906678 It really means a lot here. A fully agree with what you wrote on your user page about NPOV! --Destinero (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How it is possible to point out the majority of editors who actually don't underestand what is this about and what is happening here to the Wikipedia policies demanding presenting scientific consensus based on the most reliable sources possible to avoid undue weight? --Destinero (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done to that? It is unprecedent that only you wish to check information, ask for sources, argumentation and all other editors simply come, know nothing and vote for deletion of FAQ? It is a joke or what? For what we have Undue weight? --Destinero (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seems to misunderstand me. Discussions about what is appropriate are not debates in which two sides bring their ammunition and hope to convince the other. Most of what I have been reading related to the LGBT parenting is debate. What we need is sources. Making a blunt statement is easy, and that is what most people do. Backing it up with factual information is a whole different story, as we have seen with the LGBT parenting cases in Florida, Arkansas, California etc. In each case, the judges threw out the arguments of the opponents because they could not underpin it with reliable data. Which is not surprising as most of the opposition is based on either religious beliefs, moral disapproval or straight animus towards gay and lesbians. This is why the correct court cases are so valuable, because they force the opponents to actually provide evidence for their claims. A similar situation occurs here, where some editors take a name out of a news article that links to a affidavit of someone with a obvious POV as the main reason why a whole article should be written differently. But when I ask them about to provide some real evidence for their claims, they cannot provide them. Personally, I think the LGBT parenting article can be more balanced, for example with a section on popular views covering the claims views by various (religious) groups and whether or not those claims are actually supported by the scientific research. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I underestand you completely! I agree with everything you just wrote. Will you help you with this, please? --Destinero (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can help you. First, we have to get the current mess resolved. This mess seems to focus primarily around the FAQ, and I think that it is just a major distraction from the work that needs to be done. With the current state of the MfD, it is going to be deleted, and I think at this stage, there is nothing wrong with preemtively request a deletion and stop wasting your time. If in due time the FAQ is still needed, it can be recreated and hopefully at that stage, it doens't carry the weight of an underdeveloped article that is missing substantial parts. And that also frees the time to actually improve the article. Next thing is to start a general discussion about the structure of the article. I can start that discussion, and I would suggest to give your opinion, just as others before starting to discuss details. How does this sound? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Let's do it. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to find out if there are any rational objections to the present state of the Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ.

Ok, so, shall I userfy the FAQ for the time being, and close the MfD as userfy? After that, I will take myself a bit of time to go through the article and come up with a discussion point for the talk page so we can start working on moving forward. As for rational objections to the FAQ, I think enough people have expressed their opinion on that and I have some unexpressed ideas about that as well, so I do not see a need to keep this one going. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --Destinero (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have it userfied and closed the MfD. I let you know when I am ready with the discussion piece. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Something positive is happening here.--Destinero (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Adult sexual interest in children

Hi, Kim. I thought this would be better posted on one of our talkpages rather than at the AfD.

In re-reading our portions of the discussion, I can’t shake the thought that you noticed only my later comment re Jokestress, and not my (and her) prior comments. (These were, unfortunately, not in chronological order). That is, having noticed only the final of my points (the one which pertained to Jokestress) would explain why you noted that one should address content. (That is, missing my prior posts would explain why you thought I was focused on Jokestress.) Similarly, you wrote that I first mentioned off-wiki events, and having noticed only the final of my points (and not Jokestress’ response) would explain why you believe that I (rather than Jokestress) first brought the off-wiki events into the discussion.

From my point view (for what it’s worth): My main post was (I believe) entirely about the page content. My acknowledging Jokestress’ and my history is (I believe) necessary for reasonably good disclosure and was as neutral as I am capable ("By way of disclosure: My colleagues and I have long been the targets of Jokestress’ attacks, both on and off WP. To what extent my (or Jokestress’) opinions reflect a POV is, of course, up to readers to decide for themselves."). It was precisely in order to avoid distracting the AfD that I posted comments about Jokestress on Herostratus’ talkpage instead. (Herostratus was the main person asking/wondering/musing about out-of-character trolling.)

It was only later, with continued discussion (not involving me) about Jokestress’ (alleged) motivations or POV and after Jokestress responded to my acknowledgement of our history with poisoning the well rather than simple disclosure ("“The fact that (Cantor) wants this article deleted strikes me as WP:COI, perhaps some sort of professional rivalry or something he is not disclosing about why he dislikes this term and refuses to use it himself. And as disclosure, I had published my opinions about this editor off-wiki long before he came here under two pseudonymous accounts and started a campaign of self-promotion and attacks on his critics.”) that I then decided a fuller history was relevant at the AfD itself. If one had read only my later comment (outlining the history), then one would indeed believe that my purpose was less about the page and more about Jokestress.

If we are miscommunicating merely because of my (perhaps unwise) achronological posting, I certainly understand how such could occur. If not, it is certainly no shame to agree to disagree.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you mentioned it first, she responded and you expanded. Got it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I did indeed misread your point. I (mistakenly) thought that your disagreement stemmed from my describing of the prior history, not from my revealing that there existed one. In deciding whether to say there was a history, I was between a rock and a hard place: Because the nature of COI is usually that the person failing to disclose a potential COI is at greater fault, I elected to go with (neutral) disclosure (and detail only subsequently).

I am sorry you disagree, and Bdell555's comments on the issue would seem more apt than anything I could write. I nonetheless believe your comments at the AfD are well-reasoned, and I agree with them. Take care.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages of redirects

Tagging I don't know where you got the impression that most redirects are to have blank talk pages; Wikipedia:REDIRECT says nothing about this. Furthermore, these banners are mostly children of the Meta-banner template, which explicitly includes a Redirect class (e.g. Category:Redirect-Class Album articles.) It still seems desirable to tag these pages, as they are all categorized by these WikiProjects and need assessment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I report of your off-wiki attack on me and other editors at pedophilia

I have made this report at AN/I regarding the appropriateness of your creating an off-wiki attack site about edits and editors with whom you are involved.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you James.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented in the ANI thread, and I would appreciate your response there. If you have any real evidence that puts things in a different light, then presumably you have already shared it with Arbcom or the Foundation. In that case please let me know (off-wiki or otherwise) who to contact for verification that you have done so and that they take it seriously. Hans Adler 00:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have not read that tread anymore after it looked like it was resolved. As for real evidence, I have provided some links to the COI allegations I made, and I can for the other COI allegations I have made. Do you want those? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am interpreting your response in the sense that you have no evidence linking James Cantor to pedophilia other than through his scientific research. That puts your off-wiki attack on him and your on-wiki attack page outside the norms of civilised discourse. The correction you have made in both places improves things, but only to the point where I would consider them a borderline case.

My personal impression is that there is primarily a conflict between anti-pedophilia activism and scientific research into pedophilia going on. (A more thorough investigation might well show there are also pro-pedophilia activists involved, since we have had trouble with them in the past. If that is the case, it's crucial for both sides to not lump them together with either of the other groups.) It is important for researchers to be careful about the way they present their findings to the public so that it cannot be abused. But it is also important that researchers can find out the actual facts and communicate them to a wider professional audience for which they are relevant. Specifically, if researchers come to the conclusion that there are two different types of pedophilia that can be clearly separated, then they must be able to say so without fear of public smear campaigns. Activists are often wedded to specific words, which they use in a very broad manner. I have seen this at work in the area of scientific scepticism, for example, where activists use the term "pseudoscience" much more broadly than philosophers of science do. It is important for activists to realise that people who insist on a narrower definition of such a negative word are not automatically their adversaries. First, they often introduce other terminology which, when used consistently, gets exactly the same negative connotations. Second, as the influenza example shows we are all able to deal with different definitions of a word in different contexts.

I haven't looked at the pedophilia article, but it appears that scientists make a distinction that the general public doesn't. Since the article should be about all dimensions of the problem, it seems most appropriate to me that the article starts with something like "Pedophilia in the widest sense is..." and goes on to explain the distinctions into pedophilia proper and whatever else there is that "some" or "most scientists", or just "scientists" (depending on the level of academic consensus) make. But suppressing a distinction that may well have important implications on treatment, relapse rates and perhaps most importantly prevention and discovery, this simply won't do in an encyclopedia.

I won't deny that there may well be an aspect of self-promotion here. The self-selecting nature of our crop of experts editing any single topic is also a problem in general, because experts are obviously in a good position to skew articles towards their own views regardless of whether they represent scientific consensus or not. I have not examined whether this is the case here. But it appears to me that due to some unnecessary underlying disagreements, you are currently not addressing these points constructively. Hans Adler 08:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have a concrete issue, let me know. You haven't read the article as you say (which does not start the way you suggest it should start), so I think I wait till we can have a more to the point discussion on the topic after you have read the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Cantor question

Hi, I started this article in my sandbox and then moved it into article space. I just noticed that the edit history still contains a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with this article (everything done before August 28). It's not really a problem, but it's not very neat either, perhaps. Being a sysop, can you delete those entries from the edit history? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I dumped the old history back to your sandbox. I can delete that page so it is gone if you want. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I hope that was simpler than it looked like... next time, I'll have my sandbox deleted before I start something new, so in that vein, yes, please delete the current sandbox. Thanks!

Ok, deleted. I could have done it simpler,l but then the deleted artixle history would have remanined at the page, just deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]