Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 21 March 2007

Welcome!

Hi there. Just saw Crug Hywel and associated photos arrive. What gorgeous pictures! Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Telsa 11:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Puffin Island

Thanks for putting me right on the DAB/stub issue! - S'alright. Dab pages aren't regarded as stubs because, typically, all they have is a series of links. They're never likely to grow into "real articles", so stubbing them's a bit pointless. For the same reason lists are rarely stubbed (they have their own template - {{listdev}}). Grutness...wha? 00:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Crickhowell

I am almost surprised you don't have a picture of the arches in question, after the other lovely ones you have contributed. But yes, those arches do stick in the mind! I didn't realise for a long time quite how unusual they were.

That Crickhowell article definitely needs expanding, I have realised. It's only on pondering what to do first that I realise how much I don't know about the place. Argh.

Incidentally, I don't know whether you have noticed the recent arrival of both Portal:Wales and WP:WWNB: the Welsh Wikipedians' noticeboard. Given your contributions in Black Mountain-related areas, you might find them of interest..? --Telsa (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins

Hi Snalwibma! An explanation by an impartial 3rd party would be, if anything, even more valuable. I know very well how easy it is to label people one doesn't agree with. I suspect many things about Dawkins, but I know I have a strong personal view. Do contribute to the discussion if you want to - and even more to the edits! eg do you think the 1st para on Crtiicism should be deleted or not? best wishes. NBeale 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma! Thanks (again) for your +ve contributions to Viruses of the Mind. I'll look out the refs in more detail as you requested. BTW I didn't think I was reverting you when I responded to your request to un-garble my contribution. Did you? If so, I apologise, but if not I'd like your view for the record because Spark got me blocked for it ! NBeale 07:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive edits.

As a birder, I thought you might enjoy a break from Wiki editing and contemplate one of the joys of my life. Most evenings a little before dusk, a small flock of Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos slowly make their way past my front door, mangroves and bay in the background. Hmmm. Anyway, cheers. --Michael Johnson 05:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Most likely Rainbow Lorikeets, or maybe Eastern Rosellas. The lorikeets are loud, colourful and common. Or maybe Galahs, Sulphur-crested Cockatoos or red-rumped parrots. --Michael Johnson 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Creationism

On the upside, though, though that image was inappropriate for the Creationism article, it makes a nice balance for all the creationist images in Creation-evolution controversy, so I grabbed it. Adam Cuerden 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad that picture could be put to use. I love it

Edits

You are good at this ... I like the way the evolution article reads.--Random Replicator 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey .... its 8:22 PM EST Sunday ... where are you????? You have a life or something. Well anyway, there is much on "The Page" for you to consider when you get time. Thanks --Random Replicator 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Misconception and Summary section

Which points would you remove or reword? --Filll 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do a bit more that might help

Come to Introduction to genetics and take a look. I cut and pasted some from this article. There is complaining at genetics and gene that they have an article that is too complicated and needs a simpler introduction etc. Same as at evolution. So I am trying to push them to try an introductory article as well. --Filll 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!

I have hit a road block or two when trying to improve the lead section on evolution and in the "fact and theory" sections of the evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy articles. I have compiled a comparison between the different proposed sections of text at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison and at Talk:Evolution/LeadComparison and there is a discussion of this at Talk:Evolution. I would appreciate it if you took a peek and let me know what you think. Thanks !!--Filll 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Hi Snalwimba. Happy new year. Would be courteous to let me know that you were proposing 2 articles I created for deletion - I only found out by accident. Just a thought. NBeale 10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwimba. Tx for your reply and sorry I missed the comment in discussion for some reason - Chistmas was v busy. You ask in your nomination for deletion "Where is the evidence that the "Argument from Beauty" is a concept that has occurred in the literature" - given that, as is now clear in the article (but wasn't when you nominated it) Richard Dawkins devotes a whole section to it, as much as to the first 3 Aquinas arguments together, quite apart from other sources, would you now be prepared to make your vote a keep? NBeale 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwimba. If you want to delete the new 747 gambit article please propose it for AfD. Simply wiping it out with a redirect is not reasonable. If you have confidence that your view would represent a consensus, then please put it to the test. If you don't, perhaps I should? Or would you like me to put a redirect on a similarly carefully referenced article that you had worked on? NBeale 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gambits

NBeale and I have crossed swords on Jesus as myth an article he would love to get deleted if he thought he had a chance! He know's I'm an evil atheist and therefore sees me as leading you astray which is why he's going for me. It's also obvious I'm female and I'm sure in his church the "ladies" are expected to be quiet, bake a lot, and have no opinions that their men-folk don't tell them to have!

As for reporting him - don't bother as it's pretty low level stuff and just makes him look deperate. It might be worth notifying any closing admin as it is an abuse of process - a joke really as that is what he thinks I'm doing!. Sophia 00:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just found this . This is real abuse of process and we may well have to ask for help to stop it. Sophia 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I smell a huge rat . Sophia 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this an effort to improve the article to merit retention?

An unusual number of individuals who feel that the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit article should be deleted and turned into a redirect have jumped in and started making major edits to this article. As you are among the individuals who fit this description, I am trying to understand if this is indeed a good faith effort to improve the article so that it meets your personal standards for retention? If it is, why don't we try to find a consensus as to what should stay here and what shouldn't in order to satisfy retention. If this is not an effort to improve the article that would lead to changed votes, it seems hard to understand the sudden burst of interest in editing this article. Alansohn 07:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude but. The article title is misleading. It is set up for one concept; then follows with a litany of debate regarding the legitimacy of Dawkins. The article is disconnected from the title. NBeal, clearly is not a Dawkin's fan. Read the entry on H. Allen Orr they created. A disproportional amount of text is devoted to bashing Dawkins. Is that the claim to fame of Orr. Is it his most important contribution? Certainly not ...is there a hidden agenda here? Sorry for the intrusion--Random Replicator 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)