![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Just a quick note to thank you for re-sizing my two supporting graphs on Overpopulation - Evolution through History - they do look much tidier now and it does make the page easier to read. Not so sure about renaming the section from "historical Context" although I think the new title you've given the section works equally well (perhaps its more in "wiki-style"?) Anyhow, thanks again for your help. Regards Barryz1 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Not too sure what you mean by "trimming it", but I’m worried! I've emailed links to a number of people (including several who are well qualified to comment) to ask their opinions about my contribution to this important subject, and the general feedback I've had is they felt it really useful to put "overpopulation" into context (as I had) so as to provide "the bigger picture" and help everyone understand exactly what's been happening.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so it's articles need to be encyclopaedic; providing the full background and helping readers see things in full context. In this case that means understanding at a high-level the impact on population due to changes in human activity from “hunter gatherer”, through various agricultural phases, the industrial revolution and dramatic shifts in the 20th century, as well as set-backs such as plague (particulatly Black Death). None of this was even mentioned before in the article so after much thought and research I carefully added it. There is no POV in what I've written - it's all factual and published elsewhere (as evidenced by my copious references). I'm not giving opinions, simply pointing out in context what is actually happening.
There is a second equally (if not more) valuable point to the whole of this short section as it stands… as I said previously (on Roentgenium111's talk page ) "I think drawing attention to the fact that the population of the world is growing very rapidly in a way that has never happened before at any time in human history is perhaps the single most important point of this whole 'Overpopulation' article. Whether you think it a good or bad idea, or believe the resources of the world can support it or not, the fact of the matter is that it is happening".
So in summary - I think the section (whatever it is called – I’m warming to your revised title) makes all the relevant points in firstly identifying periods in human history that have directly contributed to changes in population (ultimately leading to an understanding of what supports and makes populations grow, which is what the article is about) as well as showing that even terrible setbacks to population, such as the Black Death or (to a lesser extent) World War II have had surprisingly little impact on the long term trend.
I'm rather short of time right now and need to carefully review what you've done. I can see you've put a lot of work into it and have made it much easier to read - thanks for that (I'm generally too wordy, I know, though I hope what I have to say is worthwhile and factually correct). Please therefore don't trim it further! Let's discuss it first? Thanks. Barryz1 (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again McSly, I've finally found some time to take a proper look at what you've done and do completely agree with almost all of your changes; you've certainly improved the article. I noticed a very minor spelling mistake with your title which I've now corrected (adding an "r" to through), more importantly I also noticed a silly factual error on my part (saying that civilization started in 10,000BC when in fact it should have said 10,000 years ago - a difference of 2,000 years!) - anyhow I've correct that too.
I did say "almost" - the one thing you've removed (and you're not alone as Roentgenium111 previously removed it and I added it back) was a brief discussion on the “How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth” model and article. It's probably true that more "scientifically minded" people might find that sort of thing slightly annoying, however I'm sure it's of great interest (thought provoking and possibly even inspirational) to a wide audience and highly relevant to the topic of overpopulation. It's also the sort of thing people aren't likely to find out about unless we tell them.
Whilst the actual calculations its based on are speculative and unreliable the concept is undoubtedly sound (it's hard to actually integrate under the population curve for, say, the last 200,000 years that humans are thought to have been around. That's not only because we don't know the actual mathematical function for the curve but also because population estimates from even 2,000 years ago (let alone 200,000) are quite uncertain. HOWEVER it's not hard to roughly estimate it and the result is of course quite surprising. Whilst I'm very much in favour of including it I'm also feeling a little cautious now as since both you and Roentgenium111 removed it (and I respect both of you as careful and experienced editors). Please could you give this more thought - maybe ask a few people what they think too? Perhaps if we emphasis the high degree of uncertainty in the actual end result we can still include it for interest only? ....Barryz1 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I noted your revert here. Unfortunately this is only one article of many under attack by this user who I believe on past experience to be an indefinitely banned user. I've posted all the IPs to FT2 here [1] as he was involved in the arbitration and the indefinate banning of this entity.Fainites barleyscribs 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong about John Gutfreund. Please read the actual article. The quote contains "fucking." Removing it is bowdlerizing reality.
“No,” he said, “I think we can agree about this: Your fucking book destroyed my career, and it made yours.”
- A user
Thanks for reverting the weak insult on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello McSly,
Saw in the history before that you helped to revert some of the vandalism relating to the "Star Trek: Countdown" page. Unfortunately, there has been some more vandalism, which I just reverted. Do you have the authority to lock the page for a while? It might be worth doing so. I imagine it would only need to be locked for a week or two in the lead-up to the new Star Trek film, after which the hype will die away and sane editing will hopefully return.
Thanks! ArizonaWikiPatrol (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Many people have done the best they can to help here. Thanks for your help. How can I add published information that is not on the internet? 69.203.3.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
Merci!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The analysis of an energy medicine needs to be qualified. Just as you cannot balance the energy of fire, air, water and earth using the chemical labortory models, it should be said that homeopathy is being characterized only by such a model. It is an energy medicine and if judged by s materialistic model, it should be noted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthtime2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I live in Torfaen so I know the facts. Do you live in Torfaen? No? Well mind your own business and stop undoing my edits. 31, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.84.143 (talk)
AR Article from Local newspaper website coroborates entry. Please ensure that you correctly identify an edit as vandalism before reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.84.143 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.st-peters.york.sch.uk/st-olaves/
Now why would you want to remove that from York?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtolkien (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
My contributions history indicates nothing of the sort. I suggest you remove that comment. I have no idea which user you refer to, although judging by your revert history, I might well sympathise with them. Regarding your fourth point, I cannot understand your comment, perhaps due to a grammatical failure. I do however agree with your that vandalism is the scourge of website such as this. However, simply reverting contributions without any form of prior research or dilligence is also tantamount to vandalism. I am quite happy to engage in any form of constructive debate, but I don't respond to trifling insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtolkien (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe I am correct in suspecting sycophantic behaviour since you have just made a completely unwarranted revert with no explanation. By the way, the change in picture was at the specific request of permissions at Wikipedia, so you have just wasted half and hour of my work and theirs. All I'm asking is for a fair deal here! If you want people to be reasonable, then why treat people like ****?
Tomtolkien (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar in appreciation for your efforts in keeping the English Wikipedia Free from vandalism! Thanks for all you do! ^_^ Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC) |
I thoroughly disgaree with the position User:68:56:175.27 has taken at Talk:Global warming, but I don't think that the material he added is vandalism. I may be missing his other exploits, but it may be better to let him post and move on than to keep on reverting. Let me know if I'm off the track. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear McSly,
Thanks for reverting my talk page using Huggle!
I had just warned that editor for vandalism, they must have been annoyed
From,
Limideen 15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
fer that. --Rrburke(talk) 19:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The Yak-43 was designed in 1983-1984. Lockheed-Martin paired up with Yakovlev in late 1991. Yakovlev sent the Yak-43 design team to Lockheed-Martin to work with them of development of the Yak-141, and also gave them access to the designs of the Yak-43. At this time they were developing the design of the F-22. Hope this helps. - Ken keisel (talk)
They are Chinese *territories*. Umofomo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umofomo (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I am married to one of Helen's grandchildren, We were informed she passed this morning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.32.201.9 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think our Edgewater Hotel spammer (see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2009#Putinbayonline.com spam) is trying to bait us into blacklisting put-in-bay.com -- that's a Chamber of Commerce domain, not one of his. Certainly his edit summaries seem calculated to goad us into this; see Special:Contributions/65.43.193.9. This behaviour even has a name; it's known as a "Joe job".
I suggest that when he turns back up again with a new IP to spam a Chamber of Commerce link you just let the link stand and ignore him.
I blacklisted every Edgewater-related domain that I could find but I suspect our spammer owns more; I'll be happy to blacklist new ones as they reappear. Just list them at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist with a link to the June archive section above. If you're unsure as to the domain's ownership, let me know and I'll check them. I spent several hours researching the various domains and business relationships associated with our earlier Put-in-Bay spam and I kept those notes. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought that as well until we now see that put-in-bay.com is being redirected to another privately owned web site called visitputinbay.com Who is says it is registered to Island Business Solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.186.62 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that vandalism on my user page. I owe you one! Nburden (T) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If you follow the external links you've been blindly reverting (Heaviside step function, Dirac delta function and Ramp function), you'll see that although it goes to a blogspot hosted page, it is not a ``blog in the sense of WP:EL Please, stop reverting my edits. I think the information on that site (http://behindtheguesses.blogspot.com/2009/06/derivative-and-integral-of-heaviside.html) is appropriate to be linked to. (173.54.14.159 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
Thanks a bunch for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Elockid (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a good thing I took a look at your page, Sir! Otherwise, I would have fought with an Anti-Vandalism Athlete, ha ha! So, I just wanted to let you know I uploaded a pic here, in case you would find the time to add an InfoBox, my photo and data from the text here. Thanks a bunch, [2] Yahal.Olal (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. I just noticed that you haven't been warning anyone's pages with Huggle, remember to click the red circle button to revert and then warn. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 05:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
Why did you revert that page? I added the most important sites to it and you take it down without even consideration?!?
It is a horrible idea.
These guides NEED to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelekinesisProf (talk • contribs)
It's not an attack! Why is everyone reverting it! It's not an attack! LuLouLouis (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reverting the vandalism done to my talk page. - Zhang He (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed on the article Shenyang J-11 edit history page, you reverted a edit [3] citing that the user Fpg996 is a sockpuppet. I've since listed Fpg996 on the sockpuppet investigation list Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fpg996, and would like to ask you if possible to substantiate the edit summary. Thanks! ThePointblank (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, the situation fixed itself. Ignore me :) ThePointblank (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting some (diff) recent vandalism on my User page. Newportm (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thanks for your efforts to combat vandalism on the wiki! RP459 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC) |
i am talking about the advertising agency article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdvertisingWriter (talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the other member obviously removed the link without even checking the website, since his reason was "spam" while the page in question belongs to a .org informational website, selling nothing and also has Zero ADS. and if he was talking about me, that would be complete non-sense since he can see that i spent 3 hours researching the topic and then i contributed to the body of the article before linking to a page which i believe completes the article, contributing to Wikipedia is writing not removing legit and complementary sources, please tell me why did you remove that PAGE ? and don't lecture me about about the rules of Wikipedia, save your copy/past i was there since day 1 and i have contributed to hundred of articles without even signing up.
Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.
The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --EpochFail (talk|contribs) 17:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the vandalism to the Powick article. I have issued a single warning on the IP user's talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reversions on my user page, he's blocked indef as a vandalism account. I appreciate the help! Dayewalker (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
How would you like the addition of "cult" cited? I had no idea what an NRM was. I had never heard the term. I looked it up and discovered it was a politically correct way of saying "cult." Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. How would you have people know NRM is a term for cult if it's not explained? Is there another, gentler way to say it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirvice626 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Sirvice626 (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Any help with this please? Sirvice626 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and happy travels. I left a note on the talk page as suggested. Since the term cult is used elsewhere in the article, I don't think it was a stretch to move it up near the top for clarity's sake. Having to read the entire article to reach such a basic understanding of NRM was entirely avoidable. Sometimes the pursuit of "neutrality" defies the senses. Finally, and unrelated entirely to that issue, do you think threatening to block me while accusing me of vandalism was warranted? Color me surprised. Sirvice626 (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed everything that could be interpreted as original research. The remaining text is copied from the cited New Scientist articles. Those articles contain references to peer reviewed publications.--Systemizer (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the IP who vandalized my talkpage. Pretty sure I know who they are, tagging new pages never seems to make any friends. C'est la vie. --Terrillja talk 21:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw you warned User:Kei100 three times for removing a ProD. ProD templates can be removed by anyone, including the page creator, and should not be restored if removed. If I have somehow misevaluated the situation, please let me know. But as I see it now, the users actions are not vandalism. Intelligentsium 02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop reverting edits for Rickey Hendon. This looks legitimate. I will edit the page with the correct information and in the correct prose. Inomyabcs (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for welcoming me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Gordon (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The edit I made about delivery dates is supported by F-35 article. You should edit constructively and not just use a buldozer to remove stuff.
Doug rosenberg (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
just want to remind you that almost 3 months ago, you said that you will contribute in the "Advertising Agency" article, but you still didn't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.147.146 (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Keep it up!!!! A8UDI 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks, for reverting spam before I got there!--fetchcomms 22:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)