| Revision as of 20:08, 10 May 2008 editVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits →Topic bans: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:31, 29 January 2024 edit undoTheImaCow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers84,942 edits →Proposed deletion of File:Organic Apple.jpg: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=13 December 2021}} | |||
| <!-- IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE ME A MESSAGE GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE --> | |||
| <!-- IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE ME A MESSAGE, PLEASE GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE --> | |||
| <tr><td valign="top"> | <tr><td valign="top"> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 27: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 10 | ||
| |algo = old(14d) | |algo = old(14d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:TimVickers/archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:TimVickers/archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 49: | Line 50: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |] | |] | ||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | ||
| Line 55: | Line 64: | ||
| </tr></table> | </tr></table> | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Peer review/PRbox}} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == You have a message == | |||
| == Informing past contributors of new ] == | |||
| {{Talkback|Whpq}} | |||
| As you were a contributor in the ], I am letting you know that {{tl|Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the ]. Thanks! — <small>]] • 2008-01-30 17:48Z</small> | |||
| {{talkback|immunize}} | |||
| Thank you for the invitation. I will try to follow the Enzyme Kinetics article and make contributions when I can. ] (]) 9:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Barnstar == | |||
| == Homo Sapiens interbreed with Homo Neanderthalensis == | |||
| It was a while ago, but I haven't forgotten. | |||
| I have provided some additional sources which the general reader can also understand. For us scientists, youtube may seem an unreliable source, but that is only the case if the source itself is unreliable, which is why I have collected videos from somewhat reputable sources such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and others. This is so the general public can also partake and understand some of the main concepts of human evolution whereas if I only used peer reviewed scientific journals, the only people reading them would be the small minority of scientists on planet Earth. But as source of reference I will nonetheless continue to include peer reviewed scientific sources so that the scientific community will began to understand that human evolution is not the way they want it to be, but far more complicated series of migrations, evolution due to the selective pressure of their respective geographical location and possible interbreedings resulting in the modern day Homo Sapiens who happen to be part Homo Neanderthalensis and the ] anatomically modern ] who may either be part Homo Neanderthalensis due to possible interbreeding or it is possible the ] in ] did not significantly interbreed with the ] and that the anatomically modern Chinese Homo Erectus alive today simply retain what seems to be "neanderthal" genes because the Neanderthals were direct descendants of ] which happens to be either a separate species or subspecies of ], and as such they both carry similar genes and passed them into their progeny in both respective evolutionary branches. Thank you! Please watch : | |||
| <Moved to trophy cabinet> :) | |||
| 1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpQiBPdFtog&NR=1 | |||
| == ref:deletion Satish Babu == | |||
| 2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zVEQCIiRs&feature=related | |||
| Hi, The page Satish Babu was deleted on 13th of February.It was about the contributions of a journalist to the Regional Media. Can you let me know how it could find relevance and where i can find the deleted page? ](]) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Admiration == | |||
| {| style="width: 95%;" | |||
| I admire your image works ! | |||
| | colspan="2" valign="middle" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em; background-color: #B0C4DE;" | | |||
| {| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="background-color: #B0C4DE;" | |||
| | rowspan="2" style="width: 100px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" | ] | |||
| | style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; letter-spacing: 0.15em;" | '''''The ] Newsletter''''' | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="font-size: 120%; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" | Issue 2 (January 2010) | |||
| <span style="color:#333333; font-variant: small-caps;">] ] | ] ]</span> | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| thank you very much!!! You´ve been very useful, keep in touch! blitox | |||
| == RfA Thanks == | |||
| <div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; "> | |||
| <div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: solid ; text-align: left; border: blue solid 1px; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: blue; padding: 5x;"> | |||
| <div class="NavHead" style="border-style: solid; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: blue ; text-align: center; border: blue solid 1px; padding: 10px; font-size: 150%;"><font face="helvetica" color="black">A message from ]].</font></div> | |||
| <div class="NavContent" style="background: none; display: none;"> | |||
| <center> | |||
| <table style="background: white ; text-align: left; font-size: 95%;"><tr><td> | |||
| <tr><td><table style="width: 100%; float: left; margin: 5px; border: black solid 3px; -moz-border-radius: 5px; background: white;"> | |||
| <tr><td><div style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; font-size: 150%;">]I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with '''61 support''', '''25 oppose''', and '''4 neutral'''. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^</td></tr> | |||
| </div></tr></td></table> | |||
| </td> | |||
| </td></tr></table> | |||
| </center> | |||
| </div></div></div> | |||
| == The various meta-analyses of homeopathy == | |||
| {{hat}} | |||
| Tim, perhaps you may want to add your thoughts here. In addition to proposing reference to and description of more meta-analysis published in RS journals, Arion's assertion that Brunton was quote-mining and only providing a partial quote by Linde is revealing. I hope that you can help us move towards consensus. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Revealing about Arion and those who repeat it, perhaps. We were discussing Linde 1997. The passages that Arion objected to my having omitted were about the editorial accompanying the 2005 Shang paper. Not only is this not the paper we were discussing, the editorial in question is not even referred to in the article. It is not "quote-mining" to omit passages that are irrelevant. ] (]) 09:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, it IS quote-mining when you provide a quote from an author that is the exact opposite of the primary meaning and intention of the author. Let me ask you, then, what was the primary message of the Linde letter to the editor? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The "primary intention" of the paper was to make some fairly specific criticisms of the Shang paper and some rather broader criticisms of the accompanying editorial; however, we were discussing neither on the homeopathy talk page. The sentence I quoted does not, as you and Arion seem to be claiming, say anything particularly negative about homoeopathy; it just makes a specific statement about a paper we ''were'' considering, which is precisely relevant to the weight that should be given to that paper. In any case, I'm not quite sure how a sentence which, perhaps, implies that homoeopathy is not proven is "the exact opposite of the primary meaning and intention" of a letter that states, in its lead paragraph, that the authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". But that's beside the point. I was making a point about Linde 1997, not about homoeopathy in general, and the passages that Arion objected to my omitting were not relevant to that paper, or to any other paper we were discussing. I would suggest that Tim's talk page is not an appropriate venue for further discussion of this. ] (]) 08:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, my invitation to Tim to comment is perfectly appropriate, especially in the light of the fact that Tim has made more edits to the homeopathy article than anyone else. Because of Tim's participation in the homeopathy article, I want to alert him to the Lancet's editorial in response to the 3rd trial Dr David Reilly's team had conducted on the treatment of people with various allergy disoorders and found significant results each time, December 10, 1994, p. 1585. The editorial asserts, "They (Reilly, et al) invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo." The editorial further says, "carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." In the article by Reilly, he says, "Either answer suggested by the evidence to date--homoeopathy works, or the clinical trial does not--is equally challenging to current medicine science." Later on, he concludes, "Our results lead us to conclude that homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way." (p. 1606) It seems a bit odd that the Reilly research is not mentioned at all in the homeopathy article. Tim, as you may know, many editors seem a bit "allergic" to proposals from me. Perhaps a proposal from you would achieve faster consensus? ]<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Individual clinical trials are less important to this article than meta-analyses that combine such trials to achieve greater statistical power and make sure local bias from individual research groups is controlled for. Relying on the meta-analyses also avoids the danger that editors might pick out positive trials, and ignore negative ones (or vice versa), since meta-analyses give a rigorous and expert assessment of all the evidence. ] (]) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I understand that, but the reference to the above Reilly studies is that this was their 3rd of four studies on allergic disorders...and this Lancet article IS a meta-analysis of his first 3 studies, totaling 202 patients. And when you consider what the Lancet editorial said about this work, it IS notable. It may be controversial as to whether the BROAD field of homeopathic research is positive, negative, or mixed, but it is not controversial that there is a body of evidence showing efficacy in the treatment of respiratory allergies. THAT is my point here...and it should be noted that the Shang review of research mysteriously makes no reference to the body of work by Reilly (I file this one under "how convenient"). In addition to these points, there are several RS meta-analyses which are presently discussed on the Talk page which are not a part of the article. I cannot help but sense that many editors here only want the "negative" meta-analyses referenced and discussed in the article. I hope that you will help be one of the editors who wants reference to other RS meta-analsyes. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :A clinical trial with a grand total of 24 patients and then scraping together data from a set of similarly tiny trials? I'm not surprised others working in the field ignored it, I certainly would. Try looking at trials on the same topic using reasonable numbers of participants eg ]. ] (]) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tim, in due respect, the Lancet published this study of 24 subjects because the researchers also conducted a meta-analysis of the 2 other studies (one of which was published in the Lancet with 144 subjects), and in total over 200 subjects. Did you know that, and if so, I'm unclear why you ignored it? Do you still think that it is not worthy, especially in the light of the accompanied editorial in the Lancet? This body of research is even more significant when you consider that this group of researchers published a FOURTH (!) study (in the BMJ!) on allergic rhinitis. Because I cannot bring anything to the Talk page or to the Article, I will be curious if you are really interested in maintaining NPOV and notable RS research or if you instead want to keep research that might have found a positive result out of wikipedia. I look forward to watching what you choose to do or how you respond. By the way, the father of American homeopathy, Constantine Hering, MD, was initially a skeptic of homeopathy and was asked by a publisher to write a book critical of homeopathy. In his research and then from his experiences, he became a homeopath and a leader in the field. I'm wondering which skeptics today may follow a similar path. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey, I just realized that I am not clear of what is meant by a "topic ban." I assume that it means that I cannot comment on Article pages or on Talk pages of articles that relate with homeopathy. Do Talk pages of users count in the topic ban? ]<sup>]</sup> 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanx for the clarification at my Talk page. Contrary to some editors' opinion, I do not pester. Hopefully, I raise good questions, like the above. I'm not expecting an answer to it tonight and will look forward to your thoughts some time in the near future. Sweet dreams... ]<sup>]</sup> 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Tim, please read this --] (]) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The good news here is that Enric now knows about this important body of research and this notable Lancet editorial. Will he or you bring it to the homeopathy article? By the way, I have no problem if you also referenced the Lewith study of 202 patients, though you will also need to acknowledge that this was not a real replication. Amongst its many differences, it only allowed 3 (!) doses of a medicine during a 4-month period. THAT was not the protocol used by Reilly, and his letter to the editor is notable in this drama. If you need the specific references, just ask. It will be curious to watch this. I sincerely hope that you take the high road. No wonder you guys want me blocked. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :"''However, suggesting specific edits would not be acceptable under the current restrictions, since this would be editing by proxy''". 6 hours and 10 minutes to break the ban restrictions after they were made clear on an arbitration case page. Impressive. | |||
| :The fact that Dana adds a bad faith assumption at the end makes it even worse (we don't want you blocked, Dana, we want you to start respecting wikipedia policies and stop disrupting the pages by pushing studies) --] (]) 02:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 3px solid #FF4F00; background-color: #8AA5DB;" | |||
| |align="left"|] | |||
| |align="center"|Thank you for voting in ], which '''passed''' with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. <br>{{-}} Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to ], ] and ] for their nominations.<br>{{-}} Thank you again, ]] | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| |} | |||
| <big>'''Content'''</big> | |||
| {{Col-begin}} | |||
| {{Col-4}} | |||
| {| style="border:solid #FF99CC 1px; margin: 1px; padding: 4pt;" | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="font-size:250%" align=center|] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |align=right style="font-size:70%"|] | |||
| |} | |||
| {{Col-4}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| {{Col-4}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| {{Col-4}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| {{Col-end}} | |||
| == |
== Message from {{user|immunize}} == | ||
| Not an impossible request for you, methinks. ; ] just moved ] to something else; could you please move it back and erase the fact it was ever moved? People are so silly sometimes! Thanks! :) ] (]) 05:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Dealt with before I came to it. ] (]) 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == POV? == | |||
| How is mentioning that there are alternative views to an old earth theory inserting POV? Rather, prohibiting any references to alternative views to earth's age and origin is forcing a certain POV. Misplaced Pages is not censored. I find it very ironic that I was accused of editing with POV and did not even mention in the article what the alternative views are, just that they exist.--] ] 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Earth == | |||
| There is a huge difference between believing in creationism and believing that the earth is flat. Maybe in your opinion, there is no difference, but there are a great deal of scientists today who believe in intelligent design, while I do not believe that there are any scientists who believe today that the world is flat. Also, your definition of what qualifies as reliable sources is questionable. I personally do not believe that dating methods that give billion year-old ages are generally very reliable, as from what I have read, scientists who get such measurements often use dating methods that are known to be inaccurate simply because they yield million or billion year-old dates.--] ] 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Creationism == | |||
| I will read the book, but that is just the opinion of one author.--] ] 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == One thing that I should point out == | |||
| When you mention my use of weasel words, the use of the word "some" only would have been a weasel word if I had used it in the context of stating that "some people believe in _" and inserting my personal belief. In the context I was not really using weasel words.--] ] 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Reliable sources == | |||
| So what your saying is that no scientific publishings regarding the age and origin of the Earth that provide evidence that is contrary to the big band <s>theory</s>fact or to the <s>theory</s>fact that the earth is billions of years old are reliable? And that this is simply by coincidence and not because of what evidence they contain? So any source I find regarding earth's age and origin that provides scientific evidence that is contrary to what is listed in the article's current sources will immediately be removed as "unreliable sources"?--] ] 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == You're needed == | |||
| ] requires someone of your knowledge-level involved with both the article, ], and the FAR. It's disappointing that an article of this level of importance is falling apart. Not badly, but enough to be delisted. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Your turn. I'm beat! ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == What is Pathophysiology? == | |||
| In terms of these medical articles, what exactly do we mean by "pathophysiology." For example, for the AIDS article, is the pathophysiology the progression of the HIV infection (which can occur prior to the actual manifestation of AIDS), or is the pathophysiology the discussion of AIDS as a disease, so it we would assume that that HIV has done its thing, so now we discuss the opportunistic infections and tumors? I wish we could just combine the virus and the disease into one article. I wouldn't have to ask this question. I want to clean up the Pathophysiology section of AIDS, but I'm not sure which way to go. Any ideas? I'd ask at WP:MEDMOS, but I get confusing answers. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == How I said it == | |||
| Yeah, after re-reading it it does seem to be insulting, which was not my intent. In my defense, note the posting time. | |||
| Thanks for the kudos. ] | ] 15:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == April 2008 == | |||
| {{Tb|immunize}} | |||
| OK :) | |||
| == New Project == | |||
| == Message from immunize == | |||
| Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active. | |||
| {{tb|immunize}} | |||
| If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at ], as it has yet to have been moved into the Misplaced Pages namespace. Thank you for your help. ] (]) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Speedy deletion of ] == | |||
| == WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter == | |||
| ] Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use ] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/February 2012 Newsletter notice}} | |||
| If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of ]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact ] to request that a copy be emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-test-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <tt>]</tt><tt><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></tt> 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == about removed article == | |||
| OOPS! My mistake, sorry about that. <tt>]</tt><tt><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></tt> 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hello Tim, | |||
| I created article about artist Dimitry Gerrman, but when I tried to add it to wikipedia I got message that you removed on 09/29/2009 another article with the same name, because copyright problems. My article is the new one. Could you please help me to add this article or please explain what could I do at this case. | |||
| == Maternal Effect == | |||
| Thank you.] (]) 10:42, 02/14/2012 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Hey Tim, I'm a student and I was interested in fixing up the Maternal effect Misplaced Pages page. Since it's a topic currently beicn covered in my Molecular Biology class @ Uni, I thought this article could do with a bit of a cleanup and clarification. I'm having trouble finding appropriate sources and diagrams (that aren't copywrited). I'm happy to draw my own and submitt them, so long as they're accurate and reviewed. | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| In regards to the article, I *suggest* moving the Paternal effect paragraph, to create a "stub" article; for clarity... | |||
| ] | |||
| So far I have included a small section about the Dorsal-ventral Axis; next the anterior-posterior axis... | |||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| Cheers ] (]) 12:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>'''unused image, the source file has been deleted, and the licence is no longer verifiable'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| == Sigh == | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| . ]<small> (]·])</small> 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --] (]) 17:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic bans == | |||
| :I've removed this tag, because there's an unfortunate circle going on here. The source file was deleted because it wasn't being used due to this file format being preferred, and now we want to delete the preferred copy because the source file was deleted in favor of this one. If we need to have the license of the source file visible to non-admins, then the source file should be restored. ] (]) 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If someone is under a topic ban, rather than just prohibited from mainspace, they should not be continuing to advocate on that topic, even in userspace. They are prohibited from the ''topic'', not simply a set of articles. Permitting such actions would be an invitation to continue ] and ], possibly ]. ] (]) 20:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I posted a request on ] --] (]) 18:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:31, 29 January 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. TimVickers has not edited Misplaced Pages since 13 December 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
| ||||
|
|
| Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback |
|---|
|
|
|
|
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, you can add it. |
You have a message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for the invitation. I will try to follow the Enzyme Kinetics article and make contributions when I can. User:Todd40324 (talk) 9:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Homo Sapiens interbreed with Homo Neanderthalensis
I have provided some additional sources which the general reader can also understand. For us scientists, youtube may seem an unreliable source, but that is only the case if the source itself is unreliable, which is why I have collected videos from somewhat reputable sources such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and others. This is so the general public can also partake and understand some of the main concepts of human evolution whereas if I only used peer reviewed scientific journals, the only people reading them would be the small minority of scientists on planet Earth. But as source of reference I will nonetheless continue to include peer reviewed scientific sources so that the scientific community will began to understand that human evolution is not the way they want it to be, but far more complicated series of migrations, evolution due to the selective pressure of their respective geographical location and possible interbreedings resulting in the modern day Homo Sapiens who happen to be part Homo Neanderthalensis and the Chinese anatomically modern Homo Erectus who may either be part Homo Neanderthalensis due to possible interbreeding or it is possible the Homo Erectus in China did not significantly interbreed with the Homo Neanderthalensis and that the anatomically modern Chinese Homo Erectus alive today simply retain what seems to be "neanderthal" genes because the Neanderthals were direct descendants of Homo Heidelbergensis which happens to be either a separate species or subspecies of Homo Erectus, and as such they both carry similar genes and passed them into their progeny in both respective evolutionary branches. Thank you! Please watch :
1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpQiBPdFtog&NR=1
2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zVEQCIiRs&feature=related
Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
| ||||
Content
|
|
Message from immunize (talk · contribs)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Message from immunize
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Misplaced Pages:RSMED
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
| |||
about removed article
Hello Tim,
I created article about artist Dimitry Gerrman, but when I tried to add it to wikipedia I got message that you removed on 09/29/2009 another article with the same name, because copyright problems. My article is the new one. Could you please help me to add this article or please explain what could I do at this case.
Thank you.User:Markus50 (talk) 10:42, 02/14/2012 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Organic Apple.jpg
The file File:Organic Apple.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused image, the source file has been deleted, and the licence is no longer verifiable
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed this tag, because there's an unfortunate circle going on here. The source file was deleted because it wasn't being used due to this file format being preferred, and now we want to delete the preferred copy because the source file was deleted in favor of this one. If we need to have the license of the source file visible to non-admins, then the source file should be restored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I posted a request on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_undeletion#File:Organic_Apple.png --TheImaCow (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
