Ec5618

Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom, and use ''descriptive'' headlines when starting new topics. Thank you.

== Archive == #/Technical - Where I keep all references to PUI, VFD, TFD, and the like. #/Dan Watts - I was asked to discuss my beliefs. == Wave power == FYI, Ultramarine added the info that, upon closer inspection, is indeed duplicative. I apologize for accusing you of removing info but it would help matters if you would create a short checkin summary to go along with your changes. Sorry again. User:Zen-master User talk:Zen-master 21:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Stratellite == Stratellite revision is very good and very up-to-date. My compliments. I have some public domain photos from April 12th how do I include them in the article? Jimcognito :First of all, thanks for being a sport and taking action. :A quick guide to uploading images: :#.jpg format is prefered for photographs, while png is prefered for drawings/computer generated images. Large images are allowed and pose no problems. :#Please make sure the file is descriptively named. Long names like "High Altitude Communication Platform Stratellite.jpg" are supported, and are both general and specific. :#You can upload to different wikis (Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikicommons). Uploading to the Commons allows the image to be used in ''all'' wikis, but only public domain images can be uploaded here. Still, I'll asume you'll want to upload to the Commons. :#Only registered users can upload. Please register at the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin Commons]. :#Once logged in you can go do [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload Special:Upload]. :#Self explanatory, really, find the file on your computer by browsing. Enter a brief description using words people might use to find an image like yours. Airship, stratospheric and Sanswire come to mind. :#Check the box, if you're legally entitled to do so. :#[Upload file] :Ok, that should take care of the uploading. Adding the image to the article is a whole other matter. :#Open the Stratellite page :#Click on 'Edit this page' :#Create a line of whitespace above ===Details=== (to add the image next to the Table of Contents), add code like this: ::: :::*The number 200 defines the horizontal maximum size of the image :::*thumb specifies that the image has been reduced in size. Clicking on a special 'thumbs'-icon in the caption will enlarge it to full size. :::*caption. Please be brief. Something like: 'Image of a Stratellite in flight' or 'Artists impression of a Stratellite in flight'. :Thanks, and good luck. == Vaneless ion wind generator == Do you have a reference for the existence of this as a power generator? The only things I can find on Google point back at Wikipedia - which makes me think this is a Wikifiction at best. --User:Wtshymanski 04:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Eye == Great work on the eye article. It's been needing a good rewrite for some time now. User:Sayeth 03:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC) == Talk:Creationism == Thank you for saving my skin on the Talk:Creationism page! I was doing the best that I could, but with little avail. As far as zeal goes, I think "Aaargghh" had me beat. Now we can actually get something done! Thanks again, User:Salva31 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :I have responded to your most recent comments on the creationism talk page EC. Please note that you are getting compliments here from a christian fundamentalist who would like to turn the creationism article into a heavily biased account in favour of creationist explanations for the origin of life. It is very important that people such as salva do not get what they want if Wikipedia is to remain a respected resource for information. User:Aaarrrggh 12:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ::Nevertheless, if Salva will present valid points, I will, and you should, listen to them. Any post that will contribute to Wikipedia becoming/remaining a "respected resource for information" should be included. -- User:Ec5618 17:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC) == Image:Xx01.jpeg == Can you point me to the discussions where this user refused to provide a good source. A few minutes digging of mine could turn up anything. User:Burgundavia (User talk:Burgundavia) 12:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC) *Silly my, I forgot to check Talk:Creationism. I see it now. Cheers. User:Burgundavia (User talk:Burgundavia) 12:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC) == Creation Science == I believe that a more correct statement would be "As such, they dismiss interpretations of observations that do not fit ...." User:Wdanwatts 17:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :If you'll forgive me, please WP:BB and make such edits if you feel they should be made. The article is as much mine as it is yours. -- User:Ec5618 17:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC) ::Thank you for the invitation. User:Wdanwatts 17:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC) == Renewable energy == :I think your edits are more biased than mine were. You are stating unequivocably that oil is not renewable. I am trying to show both sides of the argument. Please educate yourself before pointing the finger. I never deleted your comments, but I am thinking of checking them thoroughly. Nevertheless, cliaming that Peak oil is perhaps a myth, based on the fact that its possible to synthsise oil (which requires energy) is rediculous. -- User:Ec5618 22:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC) == Creationism image == Hey, thanks! It was quite easy to do... I'm glad you liked it! --User:Ikescs 21:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC) == Trolling? Bias? section of Talk: Creation Science == How do I now respond to Bensaccount's statement "It is not an honest observation, it is misrepreseting known facts as something that they are not" which is now archived? Was I just too slow in garnering a rebuttal? User:Wdanwatts 00:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC) :::I'm terribly sorry. I have a tendency to archive things, and sometimes a bit too soon. I find that archiving (and basically removing a lot of redundant commentary) from the Talk page, helps people get over their tendency to ramble. :::The cleanest way of responding to an archived discussion (and I apologise again for creating this problem), is to quote it (in part), in a new section. But, to be honest, I don't see why you would want to comment. I would let sleeping dogs lie, in this case. -- User:Ec5618 07:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC) ::::My concern was that some third party could take Bensaccount's "not .. honest" statement, and (I believe inappropriately) apply that to the reputation of Dr. Lammerts. While I have no belief that the truth of the matter will change Bensaccount's (or anybody's) mind, it was my referencing Lammerts' work initially that precipitated the comment, and I feel it would be reasonable to show some detail of experiment design and results reported as rebuttal to the charges that his work was a "misrepresentation of known facts" (and also to show the use of logic in the study design - a quality that has been stated as underused in creationists). User:Wdanwatts 11:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC) ::::My suggestion: create a new section, refer to the archived discussion, and be clear. Try to stick to undisputabe facts. As I'll probably be archiving a few more sections of the Talk page, I'll make sure put your retort underneath the original discussion, in a subsection for example. -- User:Ec5618 11:25, May 30, 2005 (UTC) == Evolution == I responded to your questions regarding why I think several better options [other than evolution] would make more sense on the Theory article User:Phantym 05:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC) == Request for comment == Hello, I have been impressed with your impartiality, and I would like for you to please take a look at Creationist Cosmology, where I have asked for a RFC on the NPOV there. I have detailed in the discussion how Joshua has repeatedly violated several portions of wiki-ettiquette. One exmaple of this is reverting twice text he didn't even read [removing an entire cosmological theory from the page] and then claiming that no such theory was removed. He has then attempted to argue (afte realizing that he did remove an entire theory) that it was not a theory, or was not a creationist cosmology, etc. Please compare my version (which I have stopped reverting to pendign the RFC) to the version he continues to emplace. Thanks! User:Phantym 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC) :I am hardly an expert on the matter. For now, I'll say that 'User:Joshuaschroeder's' version contains some unwieldy syntax and logical errors. However, 'your' comment that "A repository where Humphreys has answered many questions from his critics can be found at [http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp Humphreys Answers Critics]" is hardly NPOV. He may have attempted to answer some questions, but since no-one has subsequently been able to comment on this page, his 'answers' are suspect. There has been no peer review of his claims, as it were. His 'answers' should not be presented in this way. :"This cosmology has been criticised on a few grounds:" Clearly, both 'a few' and 'several' would be POV. :I'll review both versions in my own time, but I am confident that we should be able to create a version ''I'll'' be happy with, if you don't mind the implication. -- User:Ec5618 18:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC) :::Thank you so much. I hope you will agree that Joshuaschroeder's removal of an entire cosmology was completely out of line (I am sure he just didn't even both to read my editing). I would be fine with ''responds'' instead of ''answers'', but Joshua's constant choice to preside as judge and jury over another scientist's claims is, I think, clearly inappropriate. I appreciate your time. - User:Phantym == Re: Vandal 220.237.4.86 == Thanks very much for the apprisal! I've given this user a 30 day block, which is the longest I can safely block a static IP without another admin complaining. Thanks to your note I was also able to undo two other instances of malicious edits of other users' comments. (I've also left a note at User talk:220.237.4.86 to make it clear to other editors that this user deserves no further warnings.) If you catch this user resuming his/her behaviour (or editing under a different IP), please let me know. Thanks again! -- User:Hadal 02:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Creation science argumentation == Quick query: you deleted some commentary on one of your suggestions on the Talk:Creation-evolution controversy page, from me (User:Polocrunch) and from User:Barnaby dawson. Was there a particular reason that you deleted both criticisms of your idea without summarising our objections to your proposal? I am now going to restore both criticisms, as the debate that you have created is still ongoing, but will of course remove them if you come up with a good reason for doing so. User:Polocrunch 18:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I did not delete these comments, I merely moved them to the Talk page on which most of the discussion was contained. I'll delete the comments now, as they are duplicate. -- User:Ec5618 00:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) ::My mistake. For some reason I did not see the link. User:Polocrunch 11:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Any good idea about what to do with Bensaccount's tomfoolery? Should an official editor be called in? User:Wdanwatts 00:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::I don't think there is any way to convince him of anyone else's good intentions in this matter. Banning him would seem to be the only way of keeping him from disrupting Wikipedia, though he could always come back, should he want to. ~~Still, I would be in favour of banning him.~~ -- User:Ec5618 00:08, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) :::::He seems to have cooled down. -- User:Ec5618 23:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) ==Your recent archiving at Talk:Creation science== I note that during your archiving of the discussion at the above-mentioned article, in the "Massive Edit" subsection you removed all criticisms of Phantym's proposed rewrite of the article yet left in all comments in favor of it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation_science&diff=next&oldid=14573301]. In addition, as far as I can tell, the criticisms removed do not appear in any of the archives, much less the one you created. Please be more careful when archiving; the fact that comments against were deleted (apparently never to appear in archive) while comments in favor (and on your side of the argument) were left to remain not only is highly frowned upon but opens the door for other editors to allege that you are censoring them. If you're going to archive discussion, archive all of the discussion in a subsection. I'll be re-adding the deleted comments to the discussion to correct this. User:FeloniousMonk 16:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I see your moved the criticisms to Talk:Creation_science/Phantym_rewrite_proposal/talk#Comments_moved_in_from_Talk:Creation_science. The fact remains that only the comments in favor of the proposed rewrite were left on the main article's Talk page, which is problematic for those opposed to the rewrite. I'll re-add them. User:FeloniousMonk 16:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Re: Another vandal == While POV editing alone isn't quite grounds for a block, I do see that 's edits to creation science on the 5th and 6th crossed the line from the misguided to the malicious. Unfortunately, I was away for half of Sunday and all of Monday, so I wasn't able to act in a timely fashion. Bensaccount ''seems'' to have cooled down since; would you agree to give him a second chance? AFAIK he's been a user in good standing for quite some time, and while that doesn't excuse his behaviour, I would rather wait and see before blocking—especially now that many hours have passed since the offending edits. It's also pertinent to note that I could not block him for more than 24 hours anyway, and that doing so may escalate his disruptive behaviour (which might have cleared up on its own, sans block). Is this reasonable? Perhaps an even better option would be to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection should the problem continue. This would force discussion and prevent edit warring, which often results in favourable compromise. -- User:Hadal 03:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618

#REDIRECT User talk:Ec5618

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

E

EA | EB | EC | ED | EF | EG | EH | EI | EJ | EK | EL | EM | EN | EO | EP | ER | ES | ET | EU | EW | EX | EY | EZ |

Words begining with Ec5618:

Ec5618
Ec5618
Ec5618/Dan_Watts
Ec5618/Laboratory
Ec5618/Laboratory
Ec5618/Technical