User talk:Harej: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:05, 17 July 2008

"See here, Dr. Epstein. The fact of the matter is, were it not for the costly experiment, Elise would have succumbed to her ailment. There is no doubt about that. What say you?" The TA was demonstrably upset at his superior, Dr. Andrew Epstein, who ordered an immediate termination to an experiment which was saving his sister Elise's life.

"I have thought about it very hard," Dr. Epstein noted cooly yet with an irritated tone in his voice, "the University of Wisconsin is not a free clinic. The money this school receives must be used for purposes which benefit all students. Spending five million dollars to develop a cure for a genetic disease which occurs in one person out of one billion benefits only your sister. What I'm trying to tell you here is that you're selfish."

The TA could not believe what he was hearing; here was HIS mentor playing the standard game of stingyness on him. The moral outrage over the words of Andrew Epstein caused the TA to become exponentially angry. After about three seconds, he proceeded to punch his superior straight in the jaw.

While Dr. Epstein was embarrassed to reveal it in his lifetime, the blow issued by his assistant spoke louder than any subsequent denial which could have taken place. He had the same genetic ailment which afflicted Elise. Why, then, was he working to end research into the condition?

User:Messedrocker/Header

Welcome to my talk page!

Please add all messages under its own header on the bottom.
If you need an urgent response, email me.
If you leave a message here, I will respond on your user page. I expect you likewise to make your follow-up response (if applicable) on my page, and so forth. The exception is for trivial responses (like "ok" or "thank you") and if the messenger is not registered.

If the RFC bot is not listing your RFC, make sure it adheres to this format:

{{RFCxxx | section=Name of section !! reason=Summary of dispute !! time=~~~~~}}

Note the section=
Note the time=
Note the reason=
Note the exclamation points!

Conversations are automatically archived the week after the latest comment on my talk page.

Schmear

I couldn't resist and opened up your redirect from 2006... Source of blame: User_talk:Doc_glasgow#Bagels.3F Lawrence § t/e 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Answers. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA contest

Hi, if you are still doing this, I would like the money to go to this. Cheers. miranda 13:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lectures

Today (Apr 20th), around 15:00 UTC! Possibly on Skype, but certainly on IRC (#wikipedia-en-lectures on freenode)! I don't actually know about the Skype details... Message me on Skype (xavexgoem) about that, if you have it (no harm in getting it, either), and then maybe by that time I'll have a clue :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you'd be interested in speaking! What topic would you like to talk about? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're no longer interested in speaking? :-( How come? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC) If you have no time, I understand. If you have some reason to disagree with me on certain positions, you might actually want to speak anyway, as it would be useful to have people learn multiple views of the system.[reply]

Lack of time; nothing political. MessedRocker (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I also wish I had more time. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Question

I can't figure out why this one isn't working. Dlabtot (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bot AWOL?

Or does it just take a while? I added Talk:Documentary_hypothesis#RfC:_Vatican_reference manually in the meantime. Feel free to remove if the bot adds it instead. Faith (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hiya MR! How are you doing?

Nice to see you active a bit again... I'm writing about the unreferenced BLPs, which I still use to find articles to work on sources for. Any chance of getting an updated version anytime? Cheers, -- phoebe / (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! back to ~~BLP eradication~~ BLP referencing... :) -- phoebe / (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC not appearing on list

Did I do something wrong? Is it [1] too long? This is the first time I've ever used it and I'm sure I messed it up somehow... Sugarbat (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: OK I see it now; it just took a few minutes. Please disregard the above. :) Sugarbat (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC bot

Would it be possible to modify the RFC templates, such as Template:RFCstyle list, to include a switch to hide the listing instructions? I ask this because I've recently noticed that translcuding the RFC lists works quite nicely in many situations, but often don't require the instructions also being mentioned. Something simple like {{#ifeq:{{{hide_instructions}}}|yes| |{{RFC tagging instructions|RFCstyle}} }} would work, I believe. {{RFCstyle list|hide_instructions=yes}} would then only list the actual discussion descriptions. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot changed it back. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC bot messed up Chiropractic entry in RFCsci list

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment #RFC bot messed up Chiropractic entry in RFCsci list? I understand you're an expert on that bot, which appears to have a bug. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFCsoc list

Hasn't been updated in 3 days in the bot ok? Gnevin (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Bot

RFC Bot just closed all the RfC's and removed them from the list. Is it broken? —BradV 13:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also RFC Bot

It keeps rejecting this:
== Trivia and unnecessary repetition ==
{{RFCbio | section=Trivia and unnecessary repetition !! Repetition in recent edits !! time=18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC) }}

Is there something wrong with that? Or with the bot? RedSpruce (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I checked for errors like the one you found about 10 times over, and still managed to miss it. RedSpruce (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error message

You gave an error message. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk%3ARespiratory_system_complete_en.svg&diff=218237326&oldid=218236201. I tried to correct the issue. Could you please keep an eye on this? --CyclePat (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Lynch

I saw your list on the Wikipedia e-mail, you say, "Once an article has sources for all the statements made, or once it is deleted, remove it from this list." I think it would be hard to find a single article on Wikipedia longer than 2 sentences that has "sources for all the statements made," meanwhile there are many entirely unsourced articles, and [[David Lynch]] is sourced. Is this what the list is, a list of BLPs for which you want every statement sourced, or is that even the requirement for BLPs? --Blechnic (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about I just generally confirm that most of the article is attached to sources and remove your notice? Of course I'll make certain all controversial or remarkable statements are strictly sourced. He's controversial enough, but easily sourcable. There are so many unsourced and badly sourced BLPs that it seems a shame to worry about well-sourced, if not perfectly sourced ones. Would this work for clearing the article from your list of badly sourced/unsourced BLPs? --Blechnic (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by attributed to sources that are cited in the article? Do you mean, well I don't know what you mean? --Blechnic (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worry if you're thinking I will cite sources without naming them, which kinda appears to be what you're saying, but isn't possible--if I don't name them, I haven't sourced the statement, that's what sourcing means: attributing to a source. I do know how to cite sources, how to use reputable sources, and how to write them up as references. I'm a bit confused though that you seem to be saying something else, maybe I'll just leave these articles alone. --Blechnic (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jobs

I'll take it. And I must say, this is the first time I've wished that I was on IRC - those logs aren't available anywhere, are they? 68.151.101.48 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, me, obviously. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCbot question

Suppose I make a typo in the RFC description contained in the RFC template... if I go back later and fix it on the RFC'd article's talk page (in the template), does the bot update the RFC list with the corrected statement? If not, can I edit the RFC list directly to do so, or will I be undone? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to manually close an RfC?

Hi, people unaware of the bot's counter keep a done RfC alive by adding to the text, with the result that the 30 days are never reached.[2] Parties involved in the RfC agree to close it, but we can't figure out how. Could you help us out? Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that question. I just (idiotically) asked on an RfC talk page if we could close the RfC, as consensus was reached a few weeks ago. Now I realize that reset a counter. Can we kill a request manually somehow? Livitup (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! Livitup (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orangemarlin RFAR

Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenStreetMap.org

Is this the mapping project that you couldn't remember? I can't seem to comment on Wales' page. - Bytes breaking to bits (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Redaction

I have restored my comment, since you find it useful. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 03:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

User talk:Eu nao fiz nada Someone you tagged in January 2007 is requesting an unblock. He claims to be a good boy now. Your thoughts? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC bot

Special:Contributions/RFC bot shows no updates in some time. --Pascal666 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is out of control -- it keeps removing a brand new RfC at Talk:George Soros. Please restrain it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 12:12, 15 July 2008 edit Pascal666 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 17,485 edits →‎RFC bot: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:05, 17 July 2008 edit undo Marvin Diode (talk \| contribs) 1,756 edits →‎RFC bot Next edit →
Line 180:		Line 180:

	[[Special:Contributions/RFC bot]] shows no updates in some time. --[[User:Pascal666\|Pascal666]] ([[User talk:Pascal666\|talk]]) 12:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/RFC bot]] shows no updates in some time. --[[User:Pascal666\|Pascal666]] ([[User talk:Pascal666\|talk]]) 12:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

			:Your bot is out of control -- it keeps removing a brand new RfC at [[Talk:George Soros]]. Please restrain it. --[[User:Marvin Diode\|Marvin Diode]] ([[User talk:Marvin Diode\|talk]]) 06:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)