User talk:Froth

Archives

---

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

Don't post to the archives; if you're carrying on a previous exchange that's now archived, start a new heading here.

RE: Apples

Very very true. (Huge fan of PC's, I own a Mac, but its terrible. Its like there is something missing from them. ) Have you ever been to www.computerhope.com ? You might like their forums.

Apples

I completely agree with you about the Apple computers, I mean, if they wanted you to keep your computer a while, you would think that they would allow you to open them up and fix them yourselves. (Bringing on a discussion about Windows Vista and the Apple commercials advertising about upgrading) -- user:zylstra555 Feb 21, 2007 File:Http://specialeducator.us/images/crashdifferent.gif

Comment on StuRat RfC

Actually, your response to him is incorrect. The requests for StuRat to cease using the term "deletionist" began almost a month ago. The earliest I can find is from TenOfAllTrades on 19 December, and my first comment on the matter is on December 20. We never accepted the term, and objected to it shortly after it started being persistently used; it disappoints me to see that my initial politeness and patience has been confused for weakness and inaction. Can you please correct or withdraw your statements that rely on this error? -- SCZenz 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

More precise

Allow me to be more precise:

Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, "of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education." These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.--Filll 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But the religion itself clearly supports creationism (the idea of creationism comes from christianity).

• There is also a version of Islamic creationism and Hindu creationism, so it is not just from Christianity.
• However, if you look at the history of creationism (in particular the Harvard University Press book of Ronald L. Numbers (see this article on the same subject by Numbers), you will see that starting more than 100 years ago, most Christian faiths adopted evolution as the most reasonable explanation. And if you look at level of support for evolution, you will see that even among fundamentalists, many do not subscribe to biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy. However, there is a large body of the American public that has adopted creationism regardless of what their religious leaders have decided, or what science has decided.--Filll 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: More precise

I don't believe that the Methodist, Catholic, or Presbyterian denominations accept evolution, though I don't know about the other ones. Show me something from the Catholic church that supports evolution --froth^T 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are compatible according to the Church. Catholics are asked to reject an intelligent design that contradicts evolution in order to be in agreement with the Church position. On the 12th August 1950, the Roman Catholic Church accepted that the ‘doctrine of evolution’ was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”. In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However the encyclical rejects what it described as some “fictitious tenets of evolution”. Following this announcement Catholic Schools began teaching evolution.

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Pope Benedict XVI who was actually the President of the Commission while he was a C ardinal.--Filll 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Presbyterian

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - USA (2002) *

The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA):

1. Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and The Reformed Confessions.

2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.

3. Encourages State Boards of Education across the nation to establish standards for science education in public schools based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as determined by the scientific community.

4. Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and science educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communities, and the public to understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

United Methodist

UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,

Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,

Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,

Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,

Be it resolved that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce "Scientific" creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.

Passed June 1984, Iowa Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church.

United Presbyterian

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S.A. (1982)

Evolution and Creationism

I. Resolution

Whereas, The Program Agency of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA notes with concern a concerted effort to introduce legislation and other means for the adoption of a public school curriculum variously known as "Creationism" or "Creation Science,"

Whereas, over several years, fundamentalist church leadership, resourced by the Creation Science Research Center and the Institute for Creation Research, has prepared legislation for a number of states calling for "balanced treatment" for "creation-science" and "evolution-science," requiring that wherever one is taught the other must be granted a comparable presentation in the classroom;

Whereas, this issue represents a new situation, there are General Assembly policies on Church and State and Public Education which guide us to assert once again that the state cannot legislate the establishment of religion in the public domain;

Whereas, the dispute is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority:

Therefore, the Program Agency recommends to the 194th General Assembly (1982) the adoption of the following affirmation:

Affirms that, despite efforts to establish "creationism" or "creation-science" as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma as agreed by the court (McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education); Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature -- where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific -- is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.

Affirms that, academic freedom of both teachers and students is being further limited by the impositions of the campaign most notably in the modification of textbooks which limits the teaching about evolution but also by the threats to the professional authority and freedom of teachers to teach and students to learn;

Affirms that, required teaching of such a view constitutes an establishment of religion and a violation of the separation of church and state, as provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution and laws of the United States;

Affirms that, exposure to the Genesis account is best sought through the teaching about religion, history, social studies and literature, provinces other than the discipline of natural science, and

Calls upon Presbyterians, and upon legislators and school board members, to resist all efforts to establish any requirements upon teachers and schools to teach "creationism" or "creation science."

Adopted by General Assembly, 1982.

return to top

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S.A. (1983)

The Church, the Public School, and Creation Science

Current efforts to legislate the teaching of "creation-science" in the public school challenge and violate basic principles which guide public schools and their responsibility for education of a public that is characterized by its cultural pluralism. These basic principles are grounded both in law (General Welfare Clause of Section 8, Article 1, of U.S. Constitution) and in the Reformed understanding that human response to God's gracious calling is expressed through faithfulness, freedom, and self-determination amidst different claims and alternatives. This Reformed understanding is set forth in the public policy position on public education adopted by the 119th General Assembly:

The biblical impetus toward growth for faith and justice is reaffirmed in the theological stance of the Reformed tradition. This impetus calls for a unique combination of teaching learning experiences: in home, in church, and in public education.

Persons are called "to glorify God and enjoy him forever." Within the Reformed tradition, this calling is God's act of grace. On the Christian's side the act of grace is affirmed through commitment. But commitment is not simply the acceptance of the truth of certain doctrinal statements. It is much more the embodiment of the lifestyle of Jesus. This embodiment takes place in the everyday struggle to make decisions about the common life of God's creatures. Decision-making implies the freedom of self-determination. It calls for consciousness of alternatives and their consequences. Growth in self-determination is thus best achieved in a setting where alternate loyalties are experienced and reflected upon and where the freedom to create new alternatives is not only permitted but encouraged. Pluralism comprises such a setting, and the public school is the context of pluralism which provides an appropriate atmosphere for growth and development toward the maturity of decision-making and commitment.

In addition, Christian love and respect for persons demand that all persons be free to search for the truth wherever they may find it. This free search for truth which is essential to maturity calls for an appreciation and respect for all human efforts toward justice and love. When public education is not restricted by theological positions or secular ideologies, it provides such an arena for free inquiry and appreciation of all efforts toward humanization.

The Reformed tradition seeks, therefore, to sustain and support all efforts toward the removal of ignorance and bigotry and toward the establishment of free institutions as a source of a high degree of social stability. Public education can be such a free institution where ignorance and bigotry are challenged.*

The creation-science controversy thus touches basic tenets that are deeply rooted in the nation and in the Reformed tradition. Our primary intent is to contribute to moral discourse, as these issues are debated within the community of faith as well as within the scientific and educational communities. Our purpose is to help people consider how to think rather than to dictate what they are to think.

The goals of this dialogue are to develop public policies which both safeguard individual freedom and contribute to the public good and which strengthen the public school as one of society's most essential institutions, serving all the people. We would mark the discrete functions of the church and the school, while at the same time acknowledging their common commit, , , ment to the development of persons and to the formation of a just and humane society.

We accept a responsibility to participate in the education of the public on the issues raised by the creationism controversy and in the continuing formation of public policy affecting the public school. We make these affirmations and offer recommendations for consideration by synods, presbyteries, congregations, and the various publics represented in their membership.

Affirmations

1. As citizens of the United States, we are firmly committed to the right and freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, that is, freedom of each citizen in the determination of his or her religious allegiance, and the freedom of religious groups and institutions in the declaration of their beliefs.

2. As Christians, we believe every individual has the right to an education aimed at the full development of the individual's capacities as a human being created by God, including both intellect and character. We also believe that we have the responsibility to educate and thus will seek maximum educational opportunities for every child of God, that all persons may be prepared for responsible participation in the common life.

3. We affirm that each individual has the right to an education which recognizes rather than obscures the ethnic, racial and religious pluralism of our country and which prepares persons for life in the emerging world culture of the 21st century. Such an education views the individual as a whole person for whom discursive intellect, aesthetic sensitivity and moral perspective are intimately related.

4. We reaffirm our historic commitment to the public school as one of the basic educational institutions of the society. We celebrate its inclusiveness and its role as a major cohesive force, carrying our hopes for a fully democratic and pluralistic society. We further reaffirm the responsibility of public institutions to serve all the population as equitably as possible, neglecting none as expendable or undeserving of educational opportunity.

5. We affirm our faith that God is the author of truth and the Holy Spirit is present in all of our common life, to lead us all into truth. Ours is a journey of faith and of revelation in which the human spirit is fed and led but not coerced.

6. We believe that the nurturing of faith is the responsibility of the home and the church, not the public school. Neither the church nor the state should use the public school to compel acceptance of any creed or conformity to any specific religious belief or practice.

7. We affirm the professional responsibility of educators to make judgments about school curriculum which are based on sound scholarship and sound teaching practices.

8. We affirm that it is inappropriate for the state to mandate the teaching of the specific religious beliefs of the creationists in accord with the Overton ruling (McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education). We also affirm the responsibility of the public school to teach about religious beliefs, ideas and values as an integral part of our cultural heritage. We believe the public school has an obligation to help individuals formulate an intelligent understanding and appreciation of the role of religion in the life of people of all cultures. In the context of teaching about religion, it is appropriate to include in the public school curriculum consideration of the variety of religious interpretations of creation and the origins of human life.

9. We affirm our uncompromising commitment to academic freedom, that is, freedom to teach and to learn. Access to ideas and opportunities to consider the broad range of questions and experiences which constitute the proper preparation for a life of responsible citizenship must never be defined by the interests of any single viewpoint or segment of the public.

10. We acknowledge the need to enlarge the public participation in open inquiry, debate and action concerning the goals of education, and in the development of those educational reforms which equip children, youth and adults with equal opportunities to participate fully in the society. This participation must respect the constitutional and intellectual rights guaranteed school personnel and students by our law and tradition.

11. We pledge our continuing efforts to strengthen the public school as the most valuable, open, and accessible institution for formal education for all the people; we assert that educational needs are more important than economic, political and religious ideologies as the basis upon which to formulate educational policies.

12. We affirm anew our faith and oneness in Christ, the way, the truth and the life, as we struggle to make a faithful witness amid the conflict of convictions and conclusions between sisters and brothers who bear a common name.

Recommendations

For Congregations

1. That the General Assembly encourage congregations to study the issues in the creation-science controversy, giving particular attention to:

the historic role of the churches in the founding and developing of the public school.

the diversity of belief about creation and human origin present in our society.

the principles and assumptions which guide the development of the science curriculum in the public school and the use of scientific inquiry within all disciplines and subjects.

the essentials of the church-state issues as they apply to the public school, including a review of the major U.S. Supreme Court decisions and the recent court decisions on the creationism issue (i.e. McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education).

the processes of policymaking for the public school including the appropriate roles of the community, the educator, the parent, and the church.

2. That the General Assembly urge congregations to encourage local school boards to discuss issues of creation-science fully and openly, if and when they come onto the board's agenda.

3. That the General Assembly urge congregations to encourage and assist teachers and administrators in becoming sensitive to the religious perspectives of all persons in the schools, without sacrificing their professional commitments and standards regarding the teaching of science and teaching about religion.

4. That the General Assembly encourage congregations in communities divided by the creationism controversy to work for reconciliation and to provide a community of support for those struggling to keep the schools free of ideological indoctrination.

5. That the General Assembly encourage pastors and Christian educators to help their congregations to interpret the biblical passages dealing with creation and the origins of human life in ways that take their message seriously.

6. That the Mission Board provide study resources including the study paper prepared by the United Ministries in Education, "Creationism, the Church, and the Public School." (The paper is available from United Ministries in Education, c/o American Baptist Churches, Valley Forge, PA 19481.)

7. That the General Assembly commend the paper, "The Dialogue Between Theology and Science" (adopted by the 122nd General Assembly), as a study document addressing the basic issues related to the ongoing debate regarding the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools.

For Synods and Presbyteries

8. That the General Assembly encourage synods and presbyteries to give attention to the work of state legislatures and their committees, taking care that any discussion of proposed creation-science legislation include broader educational, religious, and constitutional questions, and to join with others to have creation-science legislation declared unconstitutional when it is in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

9. That the General Assembly urge synods and presbyteries to encourage educators and citizens to examine the textbooks being used now in the public schools for the adequacy of their teaching about creation and evolution and about the differing religious perspective and interpretations of origins, and to resist every effort to purge or discredit data which are held to be part of our common history and heritage.

10. That the General Assembly encourage presbyteries to provide in resource centers information about creation-science, evolution-science and related public school issues.

• Minutes of the 119th General Assembly, p. 526. The paper was adopted by the General Assembly and commended to the Church for study. Passed at the 195th General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1983.--Filll 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

VP

"Editcount is only one of the factors taken into account by moderators when they approve users" would be a better way to put it, the 250 is more to allow only requests with a chance of passing through. Basically, if user can be trusted not to insert POV, or vandalize, we should approve. The 250 limit simply makes sure we have enough time to investigate the user's character. Prodego ^talk 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not telling you what to say, just explaining more clearly! I don't mind you quoting me though. Prodego ^talk 01:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous people who have had medical care at Massachusetts General Hospital

Hey! Not sure I understand your response to this question. Are you meaning that such a list would be unacceptable on the reference desk, or did you think the person was asking for info to add to an article? Their question says they're planning on using the list in a speech outside Wikipedia. Skittle 16:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Froth, thanks for your “support” vote on my animation. I thought I'd pass along the rule for hyphenating things like “two trillion fold.” If it’s used like “a two-trillion-fold improvement,” you hyphenate it. If it’s used like “shown here slowed down two trillion fold,” then it’s not hyphenated. And in case you didn’t see it already, I answered your question regarding the slowed-down speed of the animation at the voting site. Greg L 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Animation

"OK then Wikipedia:Today's featured picture (animation)/January 20, 2007 needs to be changed." I agree and made that change. The discussion was removed from WP:ERRORS because the picture is no longer on the main page. Art LaPella 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on your user page

You might want to watch your photo (Image:Froth.PNG) and user page more closely;)--Pethr 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

HATE Mac osx?

Wikipedia isn't about this stuff, but why do you hate mac os x? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rgrasell (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Nsane.com

Thanks alot for your clear reply to my question on the reference desk, I have, however, updated the question. A further response would be greatly apprieciated. Apprieciated as in Beer....... If we were drinking buddies, but we aren't , so.... Apprieciated as in thanks I guess. CrazyFoolMrT 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Washington Monument FP nom duplicates

Could you please point out the glaring duplicates you see in the edit? Noclip 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was mostly kidding, but could the 3 guys in black right in front of the front corner of the monument be duplicates? --froth^T 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the candidates page, everyone within the middle 1/3 of the image's width is taken from a single picture. Noclip 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

lol

Of course there's a caveat- gaming on a mac sucks ;) ^ LOL! Not as many games, but great opengl performance. I bought Call of Duty 2, and it plays with 60 fps on highest graphics settings! Mac OS X is by far the best 3d enabled system.

Progress Quest

Hey, I noticed you've edited the Progress Quest article and that you have a high-level character in the game. I thought that, in case you haven't heard of it, I'd give you a heads up about the new server launching around Wednesday, called Pemptus, if you want to start a new character. Thought you'd be interested. --Xertz 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied to your comment on this subject, posted on my talk page. Maybe you should occasionally answer talk comments on here instead of going back and forth between pages. --Xertz 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

named anchor

See the code of User talk:Froth#example. — coelacan talk — 10:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

system re-image on bootup

Hi there, excellent content on the reference desk recently. I wanted to ask you if you had any links that demonstrate how to get a terminal to entirely re-image itself on bootup. I have heard of and tried the well-known "ghost" ... but this seems inadequate, and more intended for "backup and restore" type operations, not to mention it seems bloated with a lot of extra stuff. Any resources and tips you have are most appreciated. Thanks again for your pretty thorough answers on ref-desk, good stuff! dr.ef.tymac 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

roller coaster retard?

moving bit of conversation here:

• Come on, you know what I mean. Just commenting; it doesn't make the image worse or anything --froth^T 07:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh - I didn't mean to be a jerk - but it's just that I actually had no idea what you meant. Are you talking about the guy in the left of the front car? Have you seen many of the photos captured of people on roller coasters? He doesn't look unusual at all. Cheers, Debivort 08:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

monobook

Due to a recent Wikipedia change, your monobook.js, if it uses the warn script I use, will need to have this change done to it. Prodego ^talk 00:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Zabriskie Point Photo

I've uploaded a new version of the photo for FP consideration. I had not noticed that I uploaded the photo with a copyright notice. No offense intended. Please take a new look and reconsider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Zabriskie_Point#.5B.5BWikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates.2FZabriskie_Point.7CZabriskie_Point.2C_Death_Valley.2C_Late_Morning.5D.5D Thanks! Jlkramer 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your oversight request

I saw your note on the talkpage of an editor with Oversight access asking him to Oversight an edit. Unfortunately, posting in that fashion can call attention to precisely the material that should be deleted. In any event, the editor to whose page you posted is away this week. The recommended procedure is to send an e-mail to the Oversight mailing list using the instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, oversight is limited to the removal of personal information and the removal of potentially libellous information when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be removed. See WP:RFO. Out of curiosity, why would it be illegal to post that? Prodego ^talk 02:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Violation of the intellectual property rights of the company in question, and potentially (not a legal opinion) characterized by someone as raising an issue under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Newyorkbrad 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. But edits are not oversighted unless there is a complaint (probably via the DMCA), or the foundation advises it be removed. So oversight is not appropriate in this case, correct? However, it may be best to delete the code from the history. Technically even that isn't something we should do, under WP:COPYVIO (the closest policy I can think of). Prodego ^talk 02:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What's a good argument not to do it? Newyorkbrad 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A semi-relevant policy? :). I think that this is a case where we should ignore the rule. Prodego ^talk 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously something that should be removed from wikipedia, and oversight is the only permission that has ability to actually do this, so that's the venue that I chose. I don't know much about wikipedia's liability but it seems that if they were to get sued for anything it would be for this: hosting the most critical trade secret of the entertainment industry, protected strongly under the DMCA (there's plenty of precedent of encryption crackers getting busted under the DMCA, it's not legal speculation). To be clear, it's trivial to decrypt AACS once you have those octets, and the entire AACS scheme is designed around keeping them protected. This is it. Even if wikipedia's not technically liable, we shouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole. --froth^T 02:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And Fred Bauder agrees with you, he oversighted it. It will no doubt be back though... Prodego ^talk 03:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. The Horror! The Horror! -Fred

--froth^T 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Really?

Do you have a source for this? I was just looking through my owner's manual and noticed they have instructions for putting in memory. Hard for me to believe they'd give instructions for this in the manual if it voided the warranty. Friday (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I see no mention of this issue on Apple's warranty page either. Friday (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Laughing

Put whoever you want in there, it works. Beat that.

• See Here. Thats why I laugh.

--Darkest Hour 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL

It does what I want it to do. As you just admited. It starts an edit page. LOL,--Darkest Hour 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

legal restrictions on names

Hello, froth. Your question here inspired me to request an article collaboration at RDAC. Your question was broader, but I think this particular aspect would make a nice article. ---Sluzzelin 11:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Flcl-flclimax.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Flcl-flclimax.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ref Desk Change

Finished updating; Had to Redirect Links until you fix it. Its live now. --Parker007 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer my changes were reverted twice, even though i told the use user, it does that via a redirect see the edit history there. --Parker007 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need to change ref desk when you can change the header here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer? Just wondering? --Parker007 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unenc

"This article really... really... really sucks hard. I would have suggested a rewrite but it's just too far gone, I don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. --frothT C 07:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)"

Grow up kid.

This again? ... :/ --froth^T 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RD design

I'm writing about your redesign, as it compares to the design done by freshgavin a few months ago. Is there any reason why you didn't just duplicate it, i.e. use it as it is? If you've read the discussion concerning freshgavin's design, you'd see that the only real problem was the number of desks originally proposed (something like 15); the actual visual design received a fairly positive response from most of the users.

It just seems to me like you're reinventing the wheel for no reason, as the code was already finished, and tested on all browsers/cleaned up/etc. Discussions were had about the list of rules, size of fonts. Why did you recreate it from scratch?

Also, it was designed to blend smoothly with the design of the archive headers, and other archive pages. Now there is no consistency. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate the effort; I'm glad other people all making efforts to improve RD. I just don't understand why you're doing it your own way. 222.158.163.241 10:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)