Misplaced Pages

User talk:PaleoNeonate

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Denisarona (talk | contribs) at 10:21, 9 September 2018 (Reverted edits by Dimas gilang (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot III). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:21, 9 September 2018 by Denisarona (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Dimas gilang (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot III)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

If I left a message on your talk page, or on an article's talk page, please answer there unless necessary, starting the message with {{re|PaleoNeonate}} to gather my attention. If you leave a message here, I'll answer here. Thanks.
This is PaleoNeonate's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

This is PaleoNeonate's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Their input is welcome and their help appreciated if I cannot reply quickly.


Ethics in the Bible

Hi! I am hoping I can talk you into coming to work on ethics! If I remember correctly, you are interested in and good at history and this article is really in need of someone like you. There is a whole section on history going begging right now, and no chance of me getting to it anytime soon--or maybe at all! Or come and contribute to anything anywhere in the article! Whatever you're interested in. Any and all participation would be appreciated! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I'm sorry for the delay. As that article is contentious and there were many recent changes I'm not up to date with it and it I would need more time to read it and its talk page again. Unfortunately my Misplaced Pages-time is limited, but if there's something more specific I can directly look at you would like me to comment about, I'll try. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Everyone's been really awesome so far. Perhaps my charm simply overwhelmed them... :-) (Humor) Well, right now the history of biblical ethics is going begging, but please don't stress for even a second. I would be glad to have your input, your work is always good, but I understand if you don't have time. Take care, Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop changing the history

We live and breath footvolley. this is our business. so when we find references from publications (newspapers) of past events and we list them. do not delete what we inserted. do not delete LINKS. THIS IS WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING. this is ridiculous that outsiders attempt to change history!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:7f0:28b0:a102:9412:8f71:a75c (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2018‎ (UTC)

BARE LINKS ARE NOT REFERENCES. Sumanuil (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
2600:1702:7f0:28b0:a102:9412:8f71:a75c: I have no idea what you're talking about. I warned because I noticed an uncivil personal attack which is unacceptable. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, a couple of IP editors (who may be only one person for all I know) have been inserting bare URLs into the Footvolley page, seemingly in semi-random spots, thinking that's 'adding references', and getting upset when they're removed. Sumanuil (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sumanuil: If disruption at the article persists, feel free to ask for temporary semi-protection at WP:RFPP, an admin will determine if it's necessary and apply it if so. —PaleoNeonate – 21:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Ponyo has semiprotected for a couple of days. And yes, Sumanuil, 2600:1702:7f0:28b0:34fd:4fb9:56d5:3478 and 2600:1702:7f0:28b0:a102:9412:8f71:a75c are only one person. If IPv6 (that's the long IPs) editors have the first four groups of digits the same, they're always one in the same. The one-person range could easily be blocked, but since they haven't edited anything outside Footvolley and Ponyo has taken care of that, I think it would be overkill. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC).
Thanks! I'd be honored to also receive the visit of Bishzilla someday, as long as it's for demonstration purposes only. —PaleoNeonate – 23:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The word "overkill" made you think of Bishzilla..? I'm glad her reputation precedes her. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, I'm kind of tired of cleaning up the mess they make of my talk page, but I can handle it. Hopefully they won't mess up anything else. Sumanuil (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That is a bit of a mess. I suggest you tell them to stop posting on your page. If they continue regardless, let me know and I'll give them a short block. (Tomorrow. I'm going to bed right now — time-zone thing.) Bishonen | talk 23:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC).

Homeopathy

Hi, I would like to take the Homeopathy article to good article status but I need a blueprint for getting it there. If you can give me some suggestions it would really help. JC7V-constructive zone 16:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: Thanks for the invitation. I have not done GA reviews yet myself, but have reviewed your recent changes, improved citations and commented at the article's talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 03:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@JC7V7DC5768: (Sorry for the ping if you were already watching my talk page.) Considering how difficult editing Homeopathy is, it's possible that selecting another article for an initial GA be a good idea. Particularly, if you have access to a book that is a good review of a topic you like, it's likely a good starting point to edit articles that are covered in it. But I'm also not personally very ambitious about GA, some people manage to do things that impress me. Since my WP presence is sporadic, I tend to do more patrolling and gnomish technical edits (although I occasionally work on an article, without any assessment goal). Editors who managed to accumulate GAs are likely more clueful and may have important tips (often they accumulate green icons at the top of their user page). —PaleoNeonate – 06:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A award for you

 The Good Friend Award
Thank you for your valuable help in MfD of my userpage's subpage. You gave advices to me about deletion of userpages. This is for you. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Path slopu! —PaleoNeonate – 10:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say that I appreciate you still periodically adding to that list on my talk page, and that I'm really enjoying the last one you put up. Damn good stuff.

I often listen to electronic not-vocal-heavy stuff at work while I'm writing code because it really helps me focus, and that one is a perfect addition to my playlist. I suspect I'll be tracking down more songs by them, for the same reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad that you enjoyed it, sometimes I wondered if posting more would get annoying. It's one of my favorite dnb tracks I think. —PaleoNeonate – 06:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe

And who decides what is pseudoscience? Who decides which eyewitness accounts count and which will be swept under the rug and declared "hoax" without any actual evidence that it's a hoax, just because it contradicts traditional theories? Who gets to decide that the evidence - and when you look at it objectively, there IS evidence - is ignored? Jim Pleiades Hawkins —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jim Pleiades Hawkins: Misplaced Pages content relies on reliable sources and policies. There are plenty of reliable sources that describe or classify cryptozoology and young earth creationism (flood geology too) as pseudoscience (various can be found at their specific articles). So to answer your question, reliable scholarly sources get to decide and editors should describe those views as such per our policies (notably WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:YESPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE, etc). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
And who decides which scientific sources are to be considered "reliable"? There are intelligent and reliable scientists on BOTH sides of the debate. Including the inventors of some of our technology (such as the MRI). There is NO scientific consensus on evolution; there is only a consensus among evolutionist scientists. Just as there is NO scientific consensus on climate change; that claim and figure - "97%" - has been thoroughly refuted (although I don't want to get on a tangent on climate change; just a similar example). Censorship, that's what it is. Jim Pleiades Hawkins —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jim Pleiades Hawkins: And who decides which scientific sources are to be considered "reliable"? if they're reflecting actual scientific views of relevant experts, they are the ones we're looking for. Including the inventors of some of our technology (such as the MRI) there's no reason for someone who isn't a biologist or geologist to not be a good electrical engineer or mathematician, of course. We still wouldn't use their works as authorities on biology, geology or climatology. There is NO scientific consensus on evolution; there is only a consensus among evolutionist scientists. Just as there is NO scientific consensus on climate change that is simply false and an argument from ignorance, I'm sorry to have to say it. In any case, as I said, we use reliable sources from relevant fields, not editor opinions, as basis for article content. I have no intention to pursue an endless WP:IDHT creation-evolution debate, Misplaced Pages is not for that, but will end with leads so you at least have an opportunity to learn more about it: scientific method, scientific theory, Talk:Evolution/FAQ, evolution as fact and theory and most importantly evidence of common descent. If you would like articles to reflect views which are not that of mainstream science there are other projects like Conservapedia. —PaleoNeonate – 05:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding: I acknowledge that identifying reliable sources can initially be a challenge. For that we have Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS), the reliable sources noticeboard to assess a source and its searchable archives (WP:RSN), perennial sources (a summary of commonly discussed sources at RSN, WP:RSP), potentially unreliable sources (WP:PUS), among other available resources. —PaleoNeonate – 08:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Poodles

Thanks. Love the claim I'm a Francophobe. Ironic that his only purpose in editing this over a fair bit of time has been to argue a French origin. Anyway, I've started an RfC, I'm tired of him. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes that's quite strange... I'll try to look at it again in the next few days, who knows if a mention that my primary language is French may help at some point. "Sauce"!—PaleoNeonate – 08:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The user User talk:Doug Weller, keeps deleting all the overwhelming references stating that the poodle is of French origin. Not the 95 countries members of the FCI, nor the history of the breed, and neither the official statement madd by Germany in 1936 when the country joined the FCI (the main international dog association) stating that the poodle is solely a French breed is enough for him. It looks like he is in cruisade against the French origin of this dog as if being French was a shame.... for encyclopaedic purpose I let the assertion saying that only three kennel club worldwide, the akc, the ckc and the English kennel club are stating the opposite. But he can’t erase the fact that the rest of the kennel clubs are stating the poddle as a French breeed. He is acting like a censor that erases all the pertinents info that displeases him. For god sake, this is an article about the poodle and its origins, we are not dealing with any political or sensitive issues. Even the German article states the poodle as being French origin and cancelled his previous edits on this matter. I am tired to keep replacing the correct and documented info in the article. S’il aime tant les races allemande qu’il se concentre sur les spitz ou autres schnauzers...--Gabriel HM (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The same users cancelled again the edits and threat me of blockage, even though he his the one keeping erasing the well documented facts of the article. He is acting like a bully that does not use the talk page, threat the contributors and ignore simple plain documented facts. This is not the proper way to act in Misplaced Pages. The threats, and the cancelation by force should not be admitted. I am a member for several years without any problems, I have always be patient and understating but his actions are more related to threat intimidation and “passage en force” than anything else. On dirait que le simple fait de dire que 95 pays reconnaissent le caniche comme race française le rende dingue et s’évertue systématiquement à l’effacer et me menacer en plus de POV alors que c’est lui qui s’obstine sans aucune discussion à effacer des faits avérés. Please intervene to stop this constant threat against my edits. Cordialement --Gabriel HM (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gabriel HM: Let's look at what's actually happened. You've called me names and I've been polite. You reverted me and I didn't respond by reverting you. Instead I started a formal discussion asking which is the preferred version. Someone else reverted you and you reverted them. I gave you the standard warning that editors should get so that they can modify their behavior before they are blocked. I did not threaten you with a block and would not block you in any case as we are engaged in a content dispute, and I wouldn't use my Admin status in that way. I've not threatened you in any way. I certainly haven't used force. Not counting my changes yesterday, you've now been reverted by two other editors. And I just noticed that your French edits are simply insults including another accusation of preferring Germans over French. You are quoting policy against me while violating our policy of civility. That's not a good idea. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:::I am so sorry if you don’t understand a word of French and treat it like it was an insult.. please indulge you to open a dictionary and find the proper translation. The one that keeps reverting the edits it is you. For an obscure reason it looks that you can’t stand that the overwhelming sources and 98% of the kennel clubs worldwide say that the poodle is a French breed, and honestly I really start to wonder where this obsession comes from. Being of German origin would be more ok for you?? If I tried to erase your 3 references stating that the poodle was German you could accuse me of being partial, but actually the one that keeps erasing the simple and documented facts that 93 countries worlwide states the poodle as being of French origin is you, and this the real issue here. We can go to an arbitration committee, your status does not put you over the rules that you are supposed to protect.Be free to bring any other sources to assert your point of you, but do not erase my pertinent and corrects facts just because they do not please your. Remember what the admin on the German article told about this issue «Ursprung laut FCI-Standard ist Frankreich. Bitte dem Link in der Box folgen für Bedeutung von „Ursprung“. Ursprung ist nicht unbedingt Herkunft der Rasse.don’t worry it is not in insult neither . All the best--Gabriel HM (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate:, please as ludicrous as it might be can you intervene in the subject of the poodle breed. They keep erasing proper and factual facts. I never ever touched they ref nor depreciated their assertions. Why on earth stating that the majority of the kennel,clubs worldwide describe the poodle as a French breed intice systematic cancelation with threats. Since when accurate, pertinent and documented facts are CENSURED? My contributions does nort harm nor decredite Amy of their assertion, and this just pure intimidation and edit warring without real justification. Thank you --Gabriel HM (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gabriel HM: I'll look at the article soon. The debate should also not occur on this talk page but on the article's (as I wrote at Doug's talk page). I can read French so will also be able to check the suggested sources. Adding: I recommend using the preview button more often when posting, rather than making several actual edits correcting eachother, for technical reasons. "Sauce" above was humor about sources, as that's what matters the most. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious

gnomish guidance

Thank you for service from 2005, for welcoming users and improving references, for evaluating drafts, for a list of useful links on your personal page, for guiding and missing, - gnomish user expressing spirituality in music, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda Arendt! —PaleoNeonate – 22:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)