re: [1]

Could you find a quote for Zinn, then cite it. Thanks.Travb (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will look at this new sentence later, and source it. No worries. Using the word "some" instead of Zinn is not good. See: Weasel_words#Generalization_using_weasel_words. Thanks for your contributions. I hope I didn't discourage you. Travb (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the three revert rule. As you are currently engaging in an edit war on Criticism of George W. Bush‎, further reversion could lead to a 24 hours or greater block. - auburnpilot talk 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you make that revert? There is not a mainstream movement for impeachment!! Timneu22 02:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied Timneu22 12:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the References and otherwise cleaning up the New College of California page. You are a mensch!Berkeleysappho 10:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SeanWKennedy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article User:Dr.enh/threat, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on [[Talk:User:Dr.enh/threat|its talk page]]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of User:Dr.enh/threat. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you call the public letter a blog. It seems from the Wikipedia ref that a blog is a soapbox for opinions. The letter was on my scratch page to facilitate to of Wikipedia articles that reference the letter. --Dr.enh (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia articles reference your personal letter? Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The letter was not mine; it was from [2]. It is/was referenced in Hassan Nemazee.

Aye. Reference it to the source. This should be, at most, one sentence in this person's biography. We do not want to give undue weight to an isolated event in their life. Jehochman ^Talk 04:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had on a scratch page (not yet in a Wikipedia article) because I am waiting to see if the story grows large enough to merit any mention in any of the signatories' biographies. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the equivalence I had created between the definition of the term Planck Scale relating to energy with the usage of Planck Scale as a term for what happens in the realm of the infinitesimal, or at small size. You inserted a table, and I think you were trying to generalize the topic further, but you ended up not citing the Planck length at all, in your table. Seems if it needed the table it should list energy, length, mass, and time constants. But I don't like the way it breaks things up, and I think it removes the appearance of equivalence, making the idea of a length scale an offshoot, as though the energy scale is the more fundamental.

I wonder if you feel that is the case. It's arguable that the Planck time is the most fundamental, as something must have a duration at least that long to exist in the world of observables, and be subject to the laws of Physics. The vast majority of papers I've read seem to use the term Planck Scale to refer to small dimensions, rather than high energies. But I'm more into Cosmology and Quantum gravity theories, with an emphasis on background-independent formulations. I'd rather not just over-write your changes, but I think the issue here is this.

I personally think that Planck Scale is primarily a term used to refer to the infinitesimal realm of size near the Planck Length. I have also seen it used as a term for the Energy scale approaching the Planck energy. I think this is a secondary meaning, however. Or perhaps time is first, then space, making energy tertiary, and mass the last derived quality. Or they are equivalent, and we should agree on how to best represent that outlook.

JonathanD (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the entry on Sub-Planck, but would agree to try to locate and review it. It may be worthwhile to resurrect, but I think there is a minimum time before it could simply be re-instated. Perhaps some cleanup was also necessary, or something. I'll look into it.

JonathanD (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is at User:Dr.enh/Sub-Planck. The red text I have merged into Planck scale. The strikethrough text I don't think should be kept. The rest I have not had time to research enough to make a decision. Thanks for your interest. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions to that article. It is a difficult topic to write about, and I am looking for ways to provide balanced presentation for a wide variety of views, and improving the coverage of the existing sections, especially the lede. I really would like this to turn into a featured article, and I love fresh ideas. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Enh, God Bless You and Thanks as you are the only one person who appreciated my efforts to bring high quality non-New-Age to wikiepedia. We need more people like you and fewer clueless delete-jockey self-narcistant self-hyper "editors" Anyway This message is from creator of sub-Planck; I have been kicked of wikipedia forever by about 12 editors for simply trying to put up and restore the Sub-Planck page and commenting on the wikifascism , but don't worry about that it is not your problem...; don't bother to reply; you won't be able to; I will be kicked off within minutes of writing this automatically and this user name will disapear. Anyway since I am now banned and IP address blocked etc; perhaps in a year you can try to repost a revised complete version of sub-Planck

((unblock-ip|1=192.235.1.34|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MaliciousMole". The reason given for MaliciousMole's block is: "Vandalism-only account".|3=Jayron32))

This IP address belongs to a community college. Please block the user, not the entire college. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got the blockid, it should be quoted in the block message. It is needed to find your block as the IP isn't directly blocked. Woody (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are talking about. Nor could I understand from the template block message the correct way to request an unblock. I am not currently at that IP address, nor will not be using that IP address again until next Thursday. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The autoblock should be cleared, by now; let us know if you have any further problems editing. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aaronchall.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dr.enh! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted 4 times now in 25 hours. Please stop edit warring. Whiel you have not officially broken WP:3RR, editors who edit such are often blocked. Consider this a warning. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than repeatedly revert it would be helpful if you attempted to engage other editors in a dialog on the talk page (as seems to be happening on the Barack Obama page). I've posted a message to one of the main proponents of including some controversial material on the Obama page on his/her talk here. I'll repeat the bottom line (slightly editing the controversies under discussion):

I hope you understand the point here. One partisans's "oh my god, it's so obvious - I can't compromise on this, it's a matter of the truth vs. not the truth" might be not quite the same as another partisan's and it's entirely possible neither represents the NPOV truth. The point of NPOV is not to smear all candidates equally, but to talk about them all in the same, neutral, way. If the difference between womamizing/McCain and Rezko/Obama seems like night and day to you, I suggest you take a break and seriously examine your motives here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted material here. It was subsequently removed. Then you reverted eight more times, and counting.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] You have been edit-warring alone, against a consensus that includes User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, User:Ferrylodge, User:Arzel, User:Coemgenus, and User:C08040804. Please stop. Discussion about the disputed material has occurred at the article talk page here, but you have just kept on reinserting the disputed material. I cannot block you, because I'm a lowly editor rather than an administrator. I otherwise would.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on John McCain. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this notice due to your edits, and an editor has mentioned you at the Administrators Noticeboard. Please cease your contributions that do not effectivley contribute to the article, and that are not according to consensus on the talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Note, your failure to comply with this request will result in your account becoming blocked from editing. Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The reassessment you have requested is being carried out at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John McCain/1. Your participation would be appreciated. --Eustress (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for making this image map clickable - a great improvement. I have adjusted its size to be in keeping with the other image in this section fo the article (Sustainability), also minor adjustments to some of the wording - you might wand to have a look and discuss. I think the main words should be either Environment, Society, Economy or Environmental, Societal, Economic, preferably the former, but not a mixture of the two - what do you think? Granitethighs (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - that's great - thanks heaps! Granitethighs (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In the future, you may consider not describing how to find edit summaries to experienced editors as you did here; it comes across as condescending, and is likely to cause unnecessary antagonism. -kotra (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for creating Jimmy Creech. A Creech entry on WP was long overdue! Embarrassingly, it had been on my to-do list forever. Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "marine" component of the ecological Footprint deals with fisheries catch only. Water use is NOT accounted for in the Ecological Footprint. Therefore stating that Ecological Footprint "treats water as a scarce resource" is completely incorrect. You are right that "the sea is made of water" but the relevance of a discussion of desalination the the Ecological Footprint does not follow logically from this observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedsquirrel (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on California's 10th congressional district special election, 2009. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. – Zntrip 05:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a call at 650 279 1008 to discuss your edits of the Integral Fast Reactor page? Stk (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Let's use the IFR talk page. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Lionelt (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be cautious William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking my comment on the talk page for Traditional marriage movement and translating it into the appropriate tag in the text itself. I've gotten to the point where I can find my way down the main street of Wikipedia a-okay, but dang, this place has a lot of squirrly little back alleys that aren't on my map... Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Child Trends, you will be blocked from editing. On 7/9/09 you nominated this article for deletion. When the consensus began to show Keep you blanked the article on 7/16. Your action was to "prove a point" to Bearian (WP:Articles_for_deletion/Child_Trends) and was frivolous. I find this act intentional, not in good faith and harmful to Wikipedia. This behaviour is consistent with recent edit warring over Child Trends as a source at Traditional marriage movement. Lionelt (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.enh: From what I have seen of your edits, a pattern has become apparent. Also, comments made by other editors (on talk pages and in edit summaries) support the pattern. Stated simply, the pattern is one of making edits which you knew, or should reasonably have known, did not reflect the consensus view of the wikipedia community. You may feel that a WP:BRD approach is valid, and it may be. But the pattern of your edits give the appearance that you do not believe in reaching consensus. It is a pattern of confrontation and non-cooperation. Can you please make a clear statement of your willingness to avoid conflict and work towards consensus? I think you will find that -- if you can make and abide by that kind of statement -- the wikipedia community will continue to welcome your contributions! (sdsds - talk) 22:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sdsds, you seem to have missed the part of Wikipedia:Consensus that says, "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer." As is evident from my edits on talk pages, I give reasons grounded in Wikipedia policies. I invite you and other editors who revert my edits to do the same (without making WP:CIVIL uncivil ad hominem attacks). --Dr.enh (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts in this regard. We are in complete agreement that consensus discussions are vitally important, and that they should be conducted based on "reasons grounded in policy." I whole-heartedly commend your willingness to engage in talk page discussions about controversial articles, and your ability to help keep the tone of those discussions civil! Thanks also for those of your article edits that have been uncontroversial and have reflected the community's consensus. It is through contributions like those that we can effectively build both our encyclopedia and our camraderie as a corps of editors! (sdsds - talk) 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding a WP:CIVIL warning to my talk page. A bunch of people have already said it in content disputes with you because it is true. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit; users are allowed to remove warnings from their own user talkpages. It is understood that removing them means they have been read, and per WP:BLANKING, "Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption". Please do not re-add warnings after they have been removed. Thanks, Black Kite 00:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If "partner" means lover, then lesbian is the right word)"

As I said in the summary of my edit the second time, the sexual orientation for a character is not as relevant per se as the character's gender. List the gender, and you've got the most relevant characteristic down, and the rest (a lesbian relationship) is a logical implication all on its own.

212.242.194.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No, "female partner" can mean female colleague, and is therefor ambiguous. "Lesbian" is not a dirty word, and there is no reason to remove it and replace it by a less clear phrase. --Dr.enh (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you have been one of a number of regular editors at the above article. I was its Good Article reviewer a few months back. In response to a recent proposal to split the article, I suggested it be edited down to a more manageable size and better readability rather than focussing on the split. I suggested the article was not particularly readable in its current form, and suffered from recentism amongst other things. I have just undertaken an edit attempting to implement my suggestion, in the hope that others might have a look and decide it is now in better shape. I hope you will agree. I am happy to discuss on the talk page obviously. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of making a new article to journal the traditional marriage movement in america. If it interests you to add to or change the title of the page Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States. Mrdthree (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the soulforce reversion; the existing reference appears to be a news website, so it is not a self reference. The material is also a critism attributed to Fof, which is collaborated on their own website (not referenced). I'm not quite sure how we can justify removing the section, especially since there appears to be history between the two organisations. I get the feeling that there's politics involved in some of the editing. (NB I have no idea about who these org's are, I just got drawn in from patrolling recent edits). I thought I'd put my 2c in anyway. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a news website, but it is actually a publication of Focus on the Family. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that... Though it still must be worth recognising the friction between the two orgs in some way, mustn't it?

I don't know if you're reversions through self pub is justified. The original reference is a front for a Christian group, but it's not the group that made the statements, so I can't see how removal is justified. (If the reversions were because the incidents were irrelevent or non-notable I'd understand, its just that I dont think it's disputable that FOF made statements and Soulforce responded with a few marches and a written statement.). The christian ref as also corroborated in the 2 soulforce links that you also deleted.

As I said, I've no interest in any of these orgs, I just stepped in when it seemed two editors where losing balance as they were both polar opposite non NPOV. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in total agreement with you on the unsuitability for inclusion of the acts of some individual not connected to 350.org on the 350.org wikipedia page. I think we have consensus and should persevere to get it removed. Any RfC will go our way. ► RATEL ◄ 10:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than having it "go" one person's "way," is there some kind of compromise that can be found? I originally put in a much longer mention about the incident. Then I trimmed it because I understood the undue weight point.

Your position seems to be taking it out at any cost while mine is to at least mention it. Is there some room in there that you'd feel comfortable staking out between those two positions? In Good Faith, --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source saying that 350.org sponsored, produced, or distributed the material in question. Otherwise, put it in a relevant article, such as ecoterrorism. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking me to find evidence for a claim I won't make. I will not claim that 350.org did any of those things, but the fact remains that someone involved in the C02 industry was threatened at an event put on by anti- CO2 groups. Part of the local 350.org event seems to have been anti-biomass activism, which might make some people suspicious.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is for material sourced to reliable sources, not innuendo that "might make some people suspicious". --Dr.enh (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That is why I only included material sourced to reliable sources in my article edits.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you placed it in 350.org, thereby implying (without source) that the 350.org had something to do with the posters. --02:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not imply anything. I simply stated that this incident had occurred at a 350.org event, which is true and sourced.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sad tale of futility ► RATEL ◄ 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the term "vandalism" to describe non-vandal edits, as you did here. Even poor edits are not vandalism (please note that this is a general observation and I am not expressing an opinion as to whether any edit in question was of any given quality). Calling other editors a vandal is considered to be uncivil and an attack against them, and only inflames a situation that's often already tense. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.enh I would like to collaborate with you to make this article better. I'm hoping that you are willing and open to this. I have already made adjustments to some text in order to bring it in line with your wishes, and would be happy to continue. Removing well sourced text is not the way I would prefer to go, however. There is much scope for inclusive editing. Hyper3 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following from WP:BRD, and begin to follow the policy, as this is the only way to avoid an edit war. You need to pursue consensus with interested parties. Hyper3 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem: Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made.
• How to proceed: Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus with each, one by one.

The assumption is that Most Interested Persons will have a page watchlisted or will quickly discover if a particular page is changed.

1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)
2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.

Apply the compromise by editing the page, after which the cycle repeats. When people start regularly making non-revert edits again, you are done.

BRD is irrelevant to SOCE. There is only one other interested editor, and that is Hyper3. Hyper3 has made no explainations of his/her repeated reversion, despite several requests by me. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first pointy award! I shall try to use it only for good, and not for poking people in the eye. Unless they're ninjas. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concede your point in your reversion of my recent edit to Same-sex marriage. However, you might like to have a look at my recent Ref Desk question WP:RD/L#Does the Oxford English Dictionary mention same-sex marriage?. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Now I've got a battle with the exact same issue in the French version of the article, whose lead calls "activists" wannabe "victims" and says that only they use the term. --CJ Withers (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) problem with server not sending edit --CJ Withers (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Now in French Wikipedia, I've got a battle with the exact same issue in the article, whose lead calls "activists" wannabe "victims" and says that only they use the term. --CJ Withers (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they provide a reliable source for "only they use the term"? --Dr.enh (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heterosexism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm2 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the text you've been reverting back in , apologies if I wasn't entirely clear as to why it is being removed. The editor who originally added it has been adding similar material, often involving text bordering on opinion and conclusions, to a number of articles over the past few weeks. I've certainly no problem with the material if it is supported, *but* it has to be properly referenced for all of the claims, and written in an appropriate context. (I.e. if we're stating that an opinion is widely held, we need to prove that.) I'd be fine with discussing this further, but I would appreciate it if you would not revert it back without first resolving this problem. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and I might need to talk about a certain problem concerning a certain article. If you're interested, please email me. --CJ Withers (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad enough that you are refusing to respond to me points on talk pages, and are instead creating new sections in the talk pages, but making it look like I am the one creating the new sections is completely unacceptable. If you want to quote something I said somewhere else, then put it in quote marks. You can't just cut and paste something with the signature intact; that it flat-out forgery. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Do you have absolutely no concept of propriety?Heqwm2 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Melissa Harris-Lacewell‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the result of your false 3RR report by admin Rd232: "RFC on the content issue is now in progress ... disputed content should be left out until RFC consensus becomes clear". If you re-add the link before a consensus emerges I will immediately file a WP:AIV report and inform admin Rd232 without further warning. Thank you. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting me you re-created a redirect that I had fixed. Redirects should always be avoided on wikipedia so please avoid doing this again. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. This image (Or rather, the svg based on it.) recently came up on the Reference Desk and a few of us are wondering what the source material is? (For example, what's your cite that low challenge creates boredom among the moderately skilled, but relaxation among the highly skilled?) Thanks! APL (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Never mind, I found the citation in the template. APL (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Green Cross International.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hay's teaching is cited to Timmons, pp. 120-21 in the second paragraph of the section headed "College, acting and politicization": From the time he joined the Party until leaving it in the early 1950s, Hay taught courses in subjects ranging from Marxist theory to folk music at the "People's Educational Center" in Hollywood and later throughout the Los Angeles area. Please stop removing the information from the lead. Thank you. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made a change to Lagrangian#Special relativistic test particle with electromagnetism in which you added a new subsection called "Covariant Lagrangian". In so doing, you essentially repeated the mistake made by 0celo7 with regard to the general relativistic case. Please see Talk:Lagrangian#What is the correct Lagrangian for an isolated test particle in general relativity? and User talk:Differential 0celo7#Please come back where I argue with him about it. (Originally, I wanted to discuss the issue on the article's talk page so others could participate. However, the contributions of third parties were not constructive in my opinion. So I am talking to you on your talk page.)

I would like to emphasize these points:

• What needs to be invariant is the action integral, not the Lagrangian which is merely the integrand used to obtain that integral. Certainly the transformation properties of the Lagrangian are important, but it should not be a scalar; rather it should be a scalar density (in 4-dimensions). In one dimension (the particle's trajectory), it should be a covariant 'vector' which is the same as a scalar density in one dimensional space (and only in one dimensional space).
• I presume that you intend that the variable of integration used in your subsection would be the proper time τ. Is that correct? If that is the case, it is inconsistent to use a form of the Euler-Lagrange equations which uses coordinate time t=x⁰.
• Please show what you intend the action integral for a single particle to be (do not bother with the electromagnetism part) and justify it by showing that it is an invariant.
• Please also show that the meaning of the variable of integration is not changed by a change in the trajectory of the particle. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that the Lagrangian I added is not covariant. But it is still more elegant than

don't you think? (Of course, Lagrangians are not unique.)Dr.enh (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Harmer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harmer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article How Students Learn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Students Learn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]