Signpost delivery using AWB |
DanaUllman (talk | contribs) Sock puppets in our midst. |
||
Line 342: | Line 342: | ||
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] ([[User talk:Ralbot|talk]]) 08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)</small> |
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] ([[User talk:Ralbot|talk]]) 08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)</small> |
||
== Your suspicions were right! == |
|||
Back on January 27th [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unprovoked#Edit_summaries]], you expressed concern to [[User:unprovoked]] about not using an edit summary in his UNDOING of something that I added to the article on [[Charles Darwin]]. Even though my contribution made direct link to Darwin's letters, unprovoked and several of his friends outvoted me. As it turns out, however, several of these other people were socks. A couple of these socks were also wiki-stalking me. Sad, but true. Can you review my former contribution on January 27th and give me your NPOV view of its worthiness? When you consider that Darwin was previously so ill that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral and couldn't work 1 in every 3 days, he sought treatment from Dr. Gully with some impressive results. Although he didn't get "cure" of his indigestion, he did get some improvement in it, and perhaps more important, I have not found any reference to many of his other symptoms that he had experienced prior to Gully's treatment, including fainting speels, spots before his eyes, severe boils, and heart palpitations. Because this visit took place in 1849, 10 years before his book was published, it would seem that this experience with Dr. Gully and his hydrotherapy and homeopathic medicines was significant. My own article with many direct links to Darwin's letters is here: [http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,128]. Further, I provided even more details in my book, "The Homeopathic Revolution" [http://www.HomeopathicRevolution.com] [[User:Danaullman|Dana]] [[Special:Contributions/Danaullman|Ullman]] <sup>[[User talk:Danaullman|Talk]]</sup> 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:54, 11 February 2008
Surrey
I'm unsure whether the original editor intended the word comprehensive to be used in that manner. MurphiaMan 06:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was trying to fix the ambiguity, not add to it, as you were! If you think I'm wrong it might be better to remove the word altogether rather than revert to the previous, which seemed ambiguous in the context. --Old Moonraker 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tee-hee! Yeah, I don't know either. Its obviously very ambiguous then <g>! The whole section needs a rewrite. I'll have a go when i can put together some verifiable data. MurphiaMan 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, that would be the best solution: look forward to reading it. --Old Moonraker 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tee-hee! Yeah, I don't know either. Its obviously very ambiguous then <g>! The whole section needs a rewrite. I'll have a go when i can put together some verifiable data. MurphiaMan 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Lock (water transport)
A little severe that revert IMHO. I don't see that WP:NN comes into it. Barry isn't getting his own article here, just a mention in an article. Given that he is probably the best known lock keeper in the UK, using his name in the article isn't grossly excessive.
Mayalld 06:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sincere apologies for appearing too severe: perhaps I should have put the reasoning on the article talk page rather than trying to cram it into the edit summary. I stand by the assessment, however: mentioning one individual lock keeper by name, even a locally well-known one (where WP:IDONTKNOWIT could well apply) is too much detail for an encyclopædia article covering all the locks of the world. Best. --Old Moonraker 09:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Afterthought: Congratulations on your highly notable "drop lock" addition, BTW—I hadn't heard of one of those, either! --Old Moonraker 09:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to Patrick Stewart
Hi. I noted the US Army's request for the picture credit, but in your edit it appeared twice, once in the cation and once at the end of the article. I've put it back to the footnotes again. All the best. --Old Moonraker 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. Please see the Talk: Patrick Stewart#Image caption. Taric25 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply thereon.--Old Moonraker 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to Lord Cardigan
Thanks for your attentiveness. I discovered your edit upon going back to undo my revision, with the intention of re-looking at Woodham-Smith's book, which I first scanned yesterday after reading Errol Morris's blog in electronic New York Times about the mystery of the cannonballs in the famous two photographs by Roger Fenton "The Valley of the Shadow of Death": which photo was taken first? the one with the cannonballs on the road or the one cleared of cannonballs. I am surprised at the apparently low number fatalities to the troops in the Charge considering that over 500 horses did not survive it. Is "Cecil" a woman's name? I had thought Cecil Woodham-Smith was a man. -- Phaedrus7 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I hasten to add that the mention of Lord Lucan getting the nickname "Look on" at Balaclava has disappeared. And just as well, since according to Woodham-Smith this nickname originated at an earlier skirmish. You might be interested in co-ordinating all the entries relating to Charge of the Light Brigade, as with the number of fatalities and so forth. -- Phaedrus7 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your considered reply to my rv. Here's another account of Fenton's two pictures, but it doesn't determine the issue. On Wikipedia I moved it from The Charge of the Light Brigade to the Siege of Sebastopol, with a note on the "Charge" talk page.
- Cecil's maiden name was Fitzgerald, of a "distinguished Irish family", possibly explaining why she allows herself such an extended diversion into Lucan's actions during the Great Irish Famine in chapter six.
- I'll reinstate "Look On" at some stage, — I think I can track down the proper origin. Thanks for pointing this out. --Old Moonraker 22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at The Reason Why again and find that, according to Woodham-Smith, Lord Lucan received the nick-name "Look On", not at Balaclava, but earlier at the skirmish at the Bulganek stream the day before the Battle of Alma, Sept. 19(?); see pp. 177-178. This should be corrected or amended appropriately. Also, Woodham-Smith at p. 249 reports: "Some 700 horsemen had charged down the valley and 195 had returned. The 17th Lancers were reduced to thirty-seven troopers, the 13th Light Dragoons could muster only two officers and eight mounted men; 500 horses had been killed." It is difficult to conceive that this report would be so at odds with the casualty numbers given in present Wikipedia accounts. Might this discrepancy be explained or reconciled in some way? I appeal to your expertise. -- Phaedrus7 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- No particular expertise: I decided to expand the article after I looked it up and found it a little lightweight.
- Battle of Alma and Bulganek stream skirmish, where "Lord Look-on" looked on (albeit under very strict orders to do so): I have used "Battle of Alma" (never "Battle of Balaclava") in the text because the incident was on the march to attack the Alma River positions. Please change this if you feel that I have condensed it too far.
- The number of casualties: This is difficult to estimate, and I have possibly condensed this too far and will consider improvements. For example, the historian Kinglake gives a total of 475 dead horses, but this total includes the considerable number that were despatched later because of their wounds. The article offers 500. Conversely in describing human deaths the piece (suggesting 107, sourced from the roll on the day) doesn't present the overall total of men killed, including later deaths from wounds: Kinglake's overall figure is 113 men killed and 134 wounded.
- Saul David is plain that the "195" who returned (from 676) were those still mounted: whatever other doubts over the figures we may have we may certainly discard the assumption that all the rest (481) were killed.
- I hope this clarifies the situation. Any help in resolving things welcome! --Old Moonraker 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Afterthoughts: I have changed "the Battle of Alma" to "before the Battle of Alma", in response to your suggestion. While it goes without saying that the facts in this article about Cardigan need to be completely accurate, perhaps we don't need too much detail about the events and individuals featuring that have articles of their own (although I notice that the "Look-on" episode doesn't feature on the Lord Lucan page at all). --Old Moonraker 21:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for attending to details and matters of continuity. Yes, I noticed the absence of "Look On" on Lord Lucan's entry. And so it goes. Some topics in Wikipedia seem to have dedicated, defensive editors while others are more laisse faire(sp?) and I was surprised to find a seeming lack of co-ordination among the Crimean War-related entries while not being informed enough to know what they all might be and therefore not qualified to set the record straight.-- Phaedrus7 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Am I being perverse is seeing this as a virtue? It may not be a good thing to have a "defensive" editor taking charge of all the Crimean War-related entries and imposing his/her interpretation throughout. The way it is now we have the benefit of of several editors' viewpoints on issues which are not definitively known. Who knows: a new user may look at one of the articles, find it wanting, do the research and make changes (as I did with Cardigan). --Old Moonraker 06:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Middle Ages
Yeah, I actually read up on Wikipedia's policy about British vs. American spellings after I made that edit and your correction makes more sense than my original edit did. - Bagel7T's 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. All the best. --Old Moonraker 05:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Image tag
I've reverted your change to Image:Ferry dongan hills 1945.jpg, as I do not see anything at the source to indicate that the image is a work of the federal government. If you have proof of this, please provide it on the image page. Thanks, Pagrashtak 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply on image talk page. --Old Moonraker 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
External links in Criticism of religion
Thanks for the welcome and for fixing the link (I'm still trying to get the hang of this Wikipedia malarkey) - I thought there were others, but I seem to have been mistaken.
Yes, it's controversial, but then it's a rather hot potato of a subject. :) I've done as suggested - been bold and added back a quote.
Thanks again.
Monoape 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see if it lasts! It should do: it's strongly sourced, and the source has a page on Wikipedia. --Old Moonraker 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Curious
Why did you chose not to warn Special:Contributions/222.155.57.193 for his blatant vandalism of Negro? I went ahead and did so, but would like to know if I shouldn't. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer 15:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Generally, I don't warn an IP user with just one vandal edit: I hope that he/she will just go away! There was also a time lag of nearly two hours before I noticed the vandalism: there was a smaller chance of the warning reaching the right person by then. This warning for an IP edit on the same page was for a more persistent poster, now blocked. Any suggestions for an effective form of deterrence welcome! --Old Moonraker 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Afterthought: the IP was from the same range as Special:Contributions/222.155.57.193, probably the same individual. --Old Moonraker 18:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- The two hour difference is definitely the most compelling. I saw that someone has labeled the IP as being a sockpuppet of User:Hayden5650. LeyteWolfer 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Request for protection of Eugenics
Hello Old Moonraker. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[{{{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Eugenics_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29}}}]] regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
-- ------ --Flying tiger (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. The debate has moved on since my contribution, that leprosy is not an inherited but an infectious disease: seemingly it was counted as such at the period under consideration. Notwithstanding the "boilerplate" appearance of this message, I am assuming good faith and that Wikipedia:Canvassing does not apply here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Winches external links spam
Hi Old Moonraker
I hope to make you take part in the discussion on the article about winches - where I do not consider the links to producers as being spam.
Best regards Mads Gorm Larsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madsgormlarsen (talk • contribs) 16:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I will watch the article talk page with interest. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As a fellow railway editor, would you like to have another look at the MN article? It is up for FA, and anything that you can find that would improve the article would be incorporated. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations for the recognition of the progress you have made with this article. As I've mentioned before, my level of knowledge does not match yours in these matters.
- I can find nothing to comment on what's written at all. You will recall that a nice diagram of the valve gear comes out of copyright at the end of next month. I will be adding it to Bulleid chain-driven valve gear, so its probably superfluous here. The image at Steam locomotive#Pressure gauge (marked for 280psi operating pressure) is from Blackmoor/Blackmore Vale, but I'm not sure it adds anything: I am the uploader and I could trim it slightly to get it centred if you disagree. I would be inclined to target the steam reverser link directly to the paragraph, as it's at the bottom the page.
- Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Henry V
Yes, I understand, but the article would also prove that he was involved in the battle - which for some reason seemed to be disputed. I wasn't sure what to do for the best. Deb (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I've seen that user around. Definitely a little over-enthusiastic. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Deb 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
RoHS Image
You undid my image edit before I could finish. I was in the process of uploading the image when you undid the link change... Ugh! I give up. I'll leave the image off since it continually gets deleted. Prosecreator 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry! --Old Moonraker 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. I think this image is cursed. :) It's been removed several times now. Someday I'll try again. Prosecreator 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Further reply on User talk:Prosecreator--Old Moonraker 07:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
St Mary-le-Bow
Hey, you be bold. Thanks, I like it too. Sue Wallace (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hundered Years War
I'm sorry about the edit. i had made a mistake in my sources. one source had claimed that Edward III was the Black Prince. I had cahnged simply using that and later realized my mistake but you had already corrected me. Thank you for telling me. I am sorry but i'm a very basic user of Wikipedia and do not use the discussion pages or the blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tca achintya (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Flickr
Hiya, thanks for your message, help is always appreciated. I think I know what happened with those images, I uploaded them because they were "free" but I don't think that flickr person actually took the pictures, I think they just downloaded copyrighted images from the internet and posted them as.. ahem.... "free". Oh well, thought it was too good to be true! ha ha :) btw, feel free to chat any time, most people only contact me to slap my wrists! ;) Sue Wallace (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually
my position would be that is a great idea... these are sisterprojects. I've run into real resentments on other sisters because we denigrate them here... as I've posted about on the WP:VPP this morning. Time people here grow up and support the whole foundation project, and double links (since the proposed icons themselves may not be understood) would be a good way to overcome that, and enhance the experience for our readers. see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Expand to more generalized solution. Actually, thanks for the rv... I hadn't realized I was on that page but thought I was on WP:VPP! Ooops! Cheers! // FrankB 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see that the original proposal was for a link to Simple English Wikipedia in "See also or External links", whereas your proposal is for "page wide... 'banner' above our article" (I hope I'm not oversimplifying here). I have to say that I tend towards the original proposal, but thanks for the clarification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
William Shakespeare
While i understand you concern i can quote many refrences that state other wise the most commmon date that is well know around the world is 23rd April for birth and death but as usual you make an edit on here and straight away you recieve messages from people that think they know it all i thought this was ment to be a place where you can add you input but i guess i was wrong like everything in this world to may chiefs and not enough indians!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth (talk • contribs) 07:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's nice to be able to check on Wikipedia and find the correct information: it shouldn't be on here just because it's "most common". --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Fenton Photo of "Charge" Survivors
Just a quick note to thank you for posting Roger Fenton's original photograph. I think it very important that we see such work as originally presented, untouched. Thank you for providding us that. Best. Sir Rhosis (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the trouble to comment. I fear it may not last here in its original form: this image from Fenton was "touched up" a week after the upload. I was contemplating reverting to the original, for the very reasons you give, but I was afraid that a minor edit war might result. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Encouraged, I have now reverted Image:Fenton cannonballs crimea.jpg to the historical state.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand if one needs to highlight or lighten a photo to bring a specific person out, but these guys are not known individually to the public, rarely to historians. I think the only person ever identified in the photo is Col. Doherty (sp?). Oh, well, hope it stays the way you've presented it. Did you know that there is another photo of the group (the guy sitting on the ground is actually visible) on Roger Fenton's page? EDIT: Did you change the one I just mentioned? I relooked, it has the photo you uploaded. I would actually consider leaving that page as it was, because the photo there is different than the one you upl;oaded. It was taken from a slightly different angle, a few moments before or after the other one. Sir Rhosis (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The men's names are listed on the Library of Congress site (which I cannot access at present—either the link or the site is broken). As you noticed I did substitute the image on Fenton's page, because it's such a good example of his work, but I accept the point that the angle of the shot is different. It would be a step away from how this started, but if you think both photographs important then the best reproduction, that displays how he has managed to capture the mood and character of his subjects, should be on his page as photographer, with the alternative here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I will leave it to you. I can appreciate the effort to restore his original work so the public can see it. That is most important. So leave as is. Sir Rhosis (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Charge of the Light Brigade
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Will try to do more (there's a lot to do) - have just been re-reading Cecil Woodham Smith which is what prompted me to have a look at the enty. Cenedi (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking forward to your additions. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Glad you are looking at this - what you suggest would be fine! (I was sorry I missed the radio discussion to which my contribution referred)
The broadcast is available online (use the link in your edit) for seven days. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The Bzuk Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | Awarded for your sterling work in battling trolls and other vandals; back to the ramparts! Keep up the good work! Bzuk (talk contribs) Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC). |
- Thanks: just a bit of gnoming in between all-too-few substantial additions. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin
Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation, I appreciate it. In response I read the "we're hiring" advert on your user page, and the more formal explanations of the requirements for the post, and I came to the conclusion that I haven't the judgement required: an unfortunate tendency for kneejerk reactions being a principal disqualifier. Again, thanks for considering me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Source of River Eden
Do you have a grid reference for the source? Is Titsey a part of Limpsfield parish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 12:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Horrible and embarrasing error: it's Titsey parish. This is indeed combined with Limpsfield parish from the point of view of church administration, but not civil administration, which is what counts here. Correction will follow forthwith. Well spotted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Grid ref added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Concrete
I had dimly recalled seeing on TV that a Brit rediscovered the formula for concrete, so I cribbed some text from the Concrete article. Then when I looked at the John Smeaton article it played down his contribution. Worse, later on in the Industrial Revolution article mention is made of a Joseph Aspdin inventing cement. That's why I altered my own edit to be less specific. I'm not an expert on the history of concrete, but I think the situation needs clarifying. Aipzith (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done, with acknowledgements to your suggestion. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting
It will be interesting to see your proof that Dawkins Senior was not a conscription-evader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- You inserted it into the biography of a living person. You have to prove he was. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dawkins Senior is probably dead and cannot sue for libel. Nothing is said about any action that Senior saw.
- You inserted it into the biography of a living person. You have to prove he was. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is said about his being killed or injured. No specific area is mentioned. There were few Axis troops in Kenya in 1941. Contradictory statements have been made about the time that Richard Dawkins left Kenya, 1943 and 1949. He would normally left with his father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:HenryV.jpg
Image:HenryV.jpg which you retagged, appears to be used correctly to me. I did added a bit more information regarding its use and changed the article link from a redirect paged to the actual article page. If you feel I am in error, would you kindly explain your reasoning? Thank you. Dbiel (Talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it (and my grasp of the issue is not as strong as it might be) the "Fair Use" tag attached to the picture stipulates that it must be used
- for identification and critical commentary on
- the computer or video game in question or
- the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question.
Although this has been tightened since the tag was applied, in that the uploader has added a sentence on the page relating to the video game, there is no "critical commentary" and it adds nothing to the identification of the actual subject of the article, who is already identified with a free image. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
LAS1180
Re [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LAS1180] -- I don't know the correct protocol for adding my 2c worth, so I'll post it here. I've done some digging in the contributions list of user B15nes7 and there certainly seem to be a pile of questionable edits. One disturbing aspect is that a number of them are changes to detail (like birth dates) that appear to replace correct information by incorrect information but aren't obviously wrong. I also see a whole lot of article renames. Paul Koning (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I noticed the renames and couldn't see the point of them—a redirect page would do the job and be less disruptive. The sockpuppet discussion is here, although there have been no follow-up postings yet. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Your suspicions were right!
Back on January 27th [[1]], you expressed concern to User:unprovoked about not using an edit summary in his UNDOING of something that I added to the article on Charles Darwin. Even though my contribution made direct link to Darwin's letters, unprovoked and several of his friends outvoted me. As it turns out, however, several of these other people were socks. A couple of these socks were also wiki-stalking me. Sad, but true. Can you review my former contribution on January 27th and give me your NPOV view of its worthiness? When you consider that Darwin was previously so ill that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral and couldn't work 1 in every 3 days, he sought treatment from Dr. Gully with some impressive results. Although he didn't get "cure" of his indigestion, he did get some improvement in it, and perhaps more important, I have not found any reference to many of his other symptoms that he had experienced prior to Gully's treatment, including fainting speels, spots before his eyes, severe boils, and heart palpitations. Because this visit took place in 1849, 10 years before his book was published, it would seem that this experience with Dr. Gully and his hydrotherapy and homeopathic medicines was significant. My own article with many direct links to Darwin's letters is here: [2]. Further, I provided even more details in my book, "The Homeopathic Revolution" [3] Dana Ullman Talk 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)