User talk:Alinnisawest/Archive 1

You are standing in a talk page. Obvious exits are the user page tab and the edit tab. There are several sections and some instructions here.

> x instructions

The instructions contain directions on how Alinnisawest would like you to post on her talk page.

> read instructions

"To make it all nice and clear...

• If you need to talk to me, add a section to this page.
• When I reply, I will reply here, so add this page to your watchlist.
• If I need to talk to you, I will add a section to your talk page.
• When you reply, please reply on your talk page. I will add your talk page to my watchlist so I will know when you reply.

Thanks!"

> x sections

Sections:

Regarding my article MedicalVideos.us

I added the article to Medical Websites Category which contains article much much less worthy than my article and yet these less worthy articles and websites did not get deleted for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMedicor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberger (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Website standards are pretty stringent- what's notable/nonnotable is difficult to pin down for them. Unless the website has been mentioned many times in reliable sources, it's likely not going to be considered notable. So if you can find these sources, please add them to the article, and I'd agree it was perfectly notable. Simply because an article exists on a topic you find less notable does not mean that a slightly more notable topic should have an article, remember. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The new and improved Wikipedia:WikiProject Artix Entertainment

I've just finished going through and cleaning up the entire project. It is now ready for active use. Please note that the project userbox has been moved to {{User WikiProject Artix Entertainment}}. --Eruhildo (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Boxes

I love your userboxes! Do you mind if I copy some into my area? -I am the RockReader... I will answer all of your problems. 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Faith

Can I argue with you about faith? I'm a Christian, and I believe the bible. It could just be that I am growing up in an athiestic world, but I also believe in evolution. I am the RockReader... I will answer all of your problems. 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished your articles, you're very clever, I'll give you that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockreader (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing it with someone. I try to consider myself a fairly open person... I mean, I am convinced that evolution isn't right, but I'm perfectly willing to fairly consider evidence for it. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here goes. How do you explain fossils, and the fact that we can carbon-date fossils? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockreader (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, often scientists actually do not date the fossils themselves. They date them by the rocks they find them in. So many fossil ages are based on what they believe is the age of the rock layer they are in- rock layers dated by radioactive dating, which has been shown to be inaccurate. For rocks that are known to be only 200 years old, radioactive dating has given values of 22 to 200 million years old! So dating fossils by the rocks they are in is generally a risky proposition, because the methods used to date rocks have questionable accuracy.

About carbon dating: You probably know how carbon dating works- they figure the percentage of carbon left in a fossil or artifact, and working backwards with the half-life of carbon-14, they determine how old something is. This should be a fairly accurate way of dating things. There's only one problem- it uses the percentage of carbon originally in the organism in the formula. But scientists don't really know how much was in the organism to begin with. They can guess, but they do not know for sure.

Also on the topic of carbon dating, it's only accurate to within less than 26,000 years. Furthermore, the decay rate of carbon-14 is actually still under question. Libby, who came up with the system, later said that the decay of carbon-14, under certain circumstances, may not always be constant. He also found a new system to readjust the ages found by the old method. Using his new method, many things dated at 20,000 years old with the old method have an age of less than 6,000 years old with the adjusted method- which is well within the young earth timescale. Alinnisawest (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard carbon dating isn't accurate beyond 5,000 years. I've also read that scientists have tried carbon dating a living shell fish once and got a result saying it had been dead for a long time. I don't know any unbiased sources for that though. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that neither creation nor evolution can be proven wrong. (please note that I am an Agnostic or an Agnostic Theist, as I mostly associate any faith I have with Christianity) Both theories and beliefs have roughly an equal amount of evidence in their favor, and both carry the distinct complication that non of us will ever see either happen in our lifetimes. Evolution is slow, and extended over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, while creation only happens once because God already created everything he wanted to. Radiological dating does have a varrying degree of accuracy to be admitted, but it isn't nearly as inaccurate as you think. In the other sense, God is said to be omnipotent. You cannot prove an omnipotent being to be non-existant because said omnipotent being may simply not want to tell you it is there. This is also because humans are mortal and therefore can be wrong. It is also considered blaspheamous by the Roman Catholic Church to place any limits on God's power. Being omnipotent, God can create the world in any way he wants, be it instant creation or in 4.5 billion years of evolution. More in favor of evolution is the fact that order can and does spontaneously arrise from chaos. This is plainly called spontaneous order. To apply the second law of thermodynamics to such a thing as evolutionary life isn't quite as gound-breaking as you might think. The very foundation of evolution is that life fixes itself over time. Harmful mutations quickly die off, while helpful ones live longer and reproduce. Over very extended periods of time, evolution naturally arrives at order. The second law of thermodynamics is no good arguement against evolution, as there is more than enough evidence that evolution follows the rule. Non of this proves or denies either belief, but exemplifies that you can't possibly prove either wrong. --Netaviofhell (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no rule saying you have to be a major contributer to be part of the Wikiproject! It's just saying that you contribute a bit to the articles, or at least one of the articles. About the topic at hand though, don't forget that mutations that have a significant impact on an organism are A) extremely rare and B) almost exclusively harmful. The only significant, remotely useful, widespread mutation is sickle-cell anemia. It keeps its carriers from getting malaria, but they usually die at a young age anyway. So I never did understand how we are expected to believe that mutations can create such huge changes, even over supposed millions or billions of years. And, as a young-earth creationist, I don't really believe the world is billions of years old, anyway. Hmm, I should probably put up another section on that. I'll have to work on it. Alinnisawest (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have a pretty important question that you must consider seriously to have this be a truly neutral arguement. Though not specifically about evolution, it is related. The Big Bang Theory, stating that the universe began from the inflationary expansion (not explosion) of all space time and matter from a single infinitely dense point at some finite time in the past is the current scientific consensus about the beginning of the universe. Though today nearly anyone that believes the theory is an athiest, this theory was originally proposed by a devout Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître. I'm finding it difficult to understand how an apparently religious man, who obviously never denied the existance of God and put a lot of logical thought into his work, would have proposed this theory. However, some understanding may come when you realize that prior to this theory the scientific community was even more blatantly atheist and denied that the universe ever had a beginning at all. They thought the universe had always existed in almost the same state for all eternity. --Netaviofhell (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Darwin was in training to be a minister. Just because someone's religious doesn't mean I agree with them. In Lemaître's time, people were grasping at whatever they could find to explain how to have God and evolution. I do not believe in evolution; thus, I do not believe the universe has to be millions of years old. Speaking of which, I need to add that to my userpage. Alinnisawest (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Its really simple why religious men(and sometimes women) say such things...and it goes as follows(read carefully) *Science is an attempt to understand the universe and the way in which it functions. Because one thing causes another to happen,we see that, God placed the laws of nature. Science only wants to find out what every single one of Gods rules are. Regardless of how its said, the last sentence is fact. And due to a simple misconception of the original theory of evolution(thanks to a cartoonist newspaper reporter) everyone thinks the theory states that we evolved from apes/monkeys/etc.

A Reference ---> <--- A Reference One last thing, if you don't think evolution is real, answer me this; why do rabbits turn white in the winter and brown in the summer? also if you think the answer is adaptation...thats another word with a similar meaning to evolution(the difference is the time in which it takes for the change to occur...Also in case your wondering Southern Baptist, taught the theory of creation, and the thought of having infinite power and lifespan, why do things in the blink of an eye...talk about BORING! --8-Bits ofDeadwolf (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a rather big difference between adaption (sometimes called "microevolution") and macroevolution. Macroevolution is change from one species to another, like from a dog to a cat. Microevolution (of which adaption is sort of a minor form of) is change within a species/genus, like from a wolf to a dog (they're still pretty much the same thing). I do agree with microevolution, because that's reasonable. It's reasonable to assume that over time, wolves were tamed and bred to form dogs. It's not reasonable, from the evidence that has been presented to me (by an extremely secular school, I might add), to assume that over time, one species of animal turned into a completely different species of animal.

Your example was of a rabbit (I'm presuming you meant like a snowshoe hare or something?) changing the color of its fur. That would clearly be an example of microevolution/adaption (change within a species so that the fur colors change) as opposed to macroevolution (change from one species to another, like if the rabbits sprouted wings and grew scales and turned into pterodactyls). Also, if you want to draw it out a bit further, God is quite able to make rabbits with color-changing fur in the first place, don't you think? --Alinnisawest(talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Alinnisawest, where I come from evolution is the current scientific consensus and persisting ideas of a divinely implemented creation are regarded as anti-intellectual superstitions typically displayed by devoted religionists in the southern states of the USA. I think it reasonable to give this my viewpoint, in contrast to your declaration here: "I am convincd that evolution isn't right...". That's enough of preamble. If you wish to argue against the consensus that I share then your statements of purported evidence must stand scrutiny, and I don't see that they all do.

1. You say: "For rocks that are known to be only 200 years old, radioactive dating has given values of 22 to 200 million years old!". Please provide a reference for this claim, because reputable datings are invariably given with calculated tolerance.

2. You say: "[Carbon-14 dating] uses the percentage of carbon originally in the organism in the formula. But scientists don't really know how much was in the organism to begin with." Do correct me if I am wrong in seeing that as a mistaken straw man disparagement of the carbon-14 dating method. It actually compares the percentage of the carbon-14 isotope in the carbon NOW to the assumed ratio when the organism formed. How much carbon in total remains in the dead organic material is not a factor in these ratios, as you seem to claim.

3. You say: "Libby, who came up with the [Carbon-14 dating] system, later said that the decay of carbon-14, under certain circumstances, may not always be constant". Please substantiate that with a reference. How much variation did Libby specify, if any?

4. You say: "Using his new method, many things dated at 20,000 years old with the old method have an age of less than 6,000 years old with the adjusted method- which is well within the young earth timescale." Is this just sowing doubt in the hope of making a young-earth creation credible? If not, p Please substantiate what you are claiming. Which things, what adjustment?

5. You say: "change from one species to another,[is] like if the rabbits sprouted wings and grew scales and turned into pterodactyls". I criticise that as another straw man misrepresentation of the consensus about evolution. Nobody claims that rabbits sprouted wings. The evolutionary chain from dinosaurs to birds (lizards to pterodactyls) is now supported.

You ask: "God is quite able to make rabbits with color-changing fur in the first place, don't you think?". No, I don't think that. My reason is that I think that an all-serving explanation that "God did it" is useless for any practical purpose, such as writing an NPOV encyclopedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that it was intended as a statement of belief, not a comprehensive Wikipedia article on the subject, don't you? While we're in the business of slinging Wikipedia policies at one another (and yes, "citation needed" counts), try this one: WP:NPOV. So before you relegate Christianity to "anti-intellectual superstitions typically displayed by devoted religionists in the southern states of the USA", please do recall that it's a very nice thing to be polite, at least remotely, and that statement was pompous, rude, and heavily biased. I would be quite happy to reply to you; however, civility is a virtue, and I'll thank you to remember that. You seem to be ignoring the reason I am convinced evolution is wrong (contrary to what you want to think, it is not because that's how I was raised; I actually was near atheism for quite some time before I realized that based on evidence and logic alone, evolution simply doesn't work), which would be that it doesn't make any sense at all. Or at least such little sense that it doesn't explain much of anything, and certainly doesn't explain the origin of species, as Darwin so grandly proclaimed.

• I'll get to each of your arguments in turn, but I have to admit I was utterly confused by your second statement. The quote you took from my arguments states that carbon-14 dating works by an assumption of the original percentage of carbon in the organism/whatever it is. Then you proceed to inform me that the actual way it's done is by comparing the present percentage of carbon to the original percentage of carbon... which is exactly what I said. Finally, you say that how much carbon in the present organism/whatever doesn't matter, which directly contradicts what you said and how carbon dating works. I am quite aware of how carbon dating works, having been forced to do an atrocious number of those awful problems for various math courses over the years. And the calculation is based on the number of carbon atoms originally thought to be in the organism/whatever and the number currently in the organism/whatever, with the final value being worked out by the number of atoms that have decayed, with the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere being worked into consideration. So I really don't know what you were saying there... you agreed with me and then contradicted yourself.
• Okay, on to the next easiest to debunk. Rabbits to pterodactyls. Lighten up, it was an extreme example intended to illustrate how ridiculous I view macroevolution to be. There is no well-supported evolutionary chain from dinosaurs to birds. There are dinosaurs with hips like birds (a branch of dinosaurs, intriguingly enough, that are NOT believed to have evolved into birds) and dinosaurs with hips like lizards (hence the terms "bird-hipped" and "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs) and supposedly the lizard-hipped kind sprouted feathers and wings and flew. However, the "evidence" for this is a few specimens of what appear to be either feathered reptiles or birds with some reptilian features, most of which are considered to be the same species anyway. And the Archaeopteryx, one of the most prominent of these, is still hotly contested over whether it actually is a dinosaur-with-feathers, a bird-that-looks-vaguely-like-a-dinosaur, or something in between that may or may not point to evolution. It's by no means a conclusive piece of evidence (which something like, say, dozens of intermediary fossils, all slightly changing from an obvious dinosaur to an obvious bird, would pretty well be) and doesn't settle any debate.
• As to the rabbits... you clearly missed my actual argument. My argument was that it's an example of microevolution, and, on a tangent and certainly not intended as the central argument, if God wanted to make them that way in the first place, he could have done that too. Misinterpreting statements isn't going to get debates anywhere.
• All right, as for the first, third, and fourth arguments (the "citation needed" ones), here we are. You're probably going to complain that "Oh noes, it's biased towards creation", but find me one piece of writing that isn't biased in any way, shape, or form, and I will buy you the biggest house, best car, and whatever else you want in the world, because it's impossible to find an unbiased statement. So we'll have to agree that you can use evolution-biased writings, and I'll use whatever I can find, which may or may not include evidence from evolutionists, because I still try to keep an open mind.
• On carbon dating: [1] [2] Even this article, written by someone clearly anti-creationist, said that, quite frankly, the amount of C-14 (in the atmosphere, which would directly affect the amount in the organism/whatever) is variable, which throws off any and all calculations made with it.
• On Libby: Agh, can't find the quote... I'm pretty sure I first saw it here on Wikipedia, maybe on the carbon dating article, but it must have been changed since then, and I don't really feel like sorting through months of edits. However, it is pretty conclusive that carbon-14 decay is not constant; here, for example, it discusses how it has been since disproved. The refs above should corroborate this. I know the last one does, at least.
• On the third... well, yes, of course I'm trying to show that there is doubt in regards to the evolutionary timescale! What else did you think I was doing, trying to support it?! I was stating that the evidence in the world, when looked at as objectively as possible and using the adjusted method that allows for variation in carbon decay, does cast some doubt on the "billions of years" thing, and proves that it is possible, although not definite, that the organisms/whatever (I'm getting tired of typing that!) dated by carbon dating as more than 6,000 years old could be less than 6,000 years old. So basically, I was saying that carbon dating is unreliable and shouldn't be used for definite dates, because environmental conditions, etc. could very easily throw the dating off, perhaps by thousands of years (which is what I believe happened).

So there's your answer. If I contradicted myself or confused you in any way, tell me so I can check it over and figure out what I actually meant. Thanks. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here)

I went back and put numbers on my questions. Thank you Alinnisawest for your reminders about civility and your expressed willingness to recheck your answers.

1. Your claim that any responsibly implemented Carbon-14 dating could yield a result of 200 million years is without merit. The half-life of the isotope carbon-14 is far too short. Paying attention to this your own reference you would have found that no measure is possible beyond 120,000 years.

2. Your expressed confusion about that question arises because you do not recognise that carbon-14 dating, for which I again provide a good wikilink, does not evaluate the percentage of carbon in an organism. It evaluates the ratio of unstable C14 to stable C12 & C13 isotopes.

3. You have not answered.

4. You have not answered. Thank you for the link to Dave E. Matson's robust anti-new-earth-creationist article.

5. Your reply is that what you claimed was an absurd example by which you intend to mock the evolutionary chain from dinosaurs to birds.

The evolutionary chain from theropod coelurosaur dinosaurs via chaoyangia, ornnitholestes, archeaeopteryx, confuciusomia to birds is supported by academic consensus, represented to Wikipedia's standards at Origin of birds and based on reliable sources such as [3] [4].

In old scriptures, the ancient writer of the Torah at Genesis 1:20-22 made claims that are incompatible with any of the above, and whose source one can only speculate about. Later Paulus presented a crude taxology at 1 Cor. 15:39. Today there is irresponsible and poorly quantified disputation at fringe sites contenderministries.org and specialityinterests.net. However it is fairest to conclude that the evolutionary chain from dinosaurs to birds is overwhelmingly supported, just not by your anti-evolutionist advocacy.

In view of the WP:AGF difficulties that your response shows, and the fact that the "F for faith" in that Wikipolicy does not mean any specific belief system, I reassure you that I have not, and intend never to, enter into any discussion of Christianity with you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Wow, yeah, just realized I totally messed the numbers up. Sorry! Hope you were still able to figure out what I actually meant. So anyway... here we go again.

1. Went back and read the statements in question, and realized what I gave to you really didn't cover what I said at all. I should have given you a reference for radioactive dating, which is what I referred to in the original statement. So yeah, carbon dating isn't accurate for millions of years; I should have explained that I meant radioactive dating, not carbon dating. It's dating based on the decay of other radioactive elements (such as polonium) with longer half-lifes. I'll see about finding you some sources for the incorrect dates, to the point that the same sample was dated at widely varying dates (and the variation in question was NOT something small [I guess?] like a million years, it was more like 100 million years)

2. Yeah, I understand what you mean by the ratio, but it does also involve a comparison of how much carbon-14 is currently in an organism/whatever as compared to how much they originally thought was in it. Which means the percentage of carbon-14 that's left; I suppose I said that in a confusing manner. However the point still remains that while the percentage is not the only thing used to determine it, it is a part of the equation none-the-less. Even you admitted that- "It actually compares the percentage of the carbon-14 isotope in the carbon NOW to the assumed ratio when the organism formed" was your actual statement.

3. As I stated above, no, I couldn't find the Libby quote- I believe it was in the Wikipedia article (with a source!) but it's no longer there, which is why I linked you to the (pro-evolution) article which stated quite clearly that the carbon-14 decay is variable, as well as the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. So that's a quote from someone else to back that up, so the point is essentially moot.

4. Yes, actually, I did answer your exact question! You asked "Is this just sowing doubt in the hope of making a young-earth creation credible? If not, please substantiate what you are claiming. Which things, what adjustment?" My answer was yes, it is trying to sow doubt... what else would I be trying to do? What else is any argument doing, than trying to show there is doubt in the opposing argument? So my answer was yes. You didn't ask for any further information in that case, which I suppose you can say is being nitpicky, but I interpreted it that you didn't want other information unless I answered the first question with "no", which I did not do. So if you'd like the information even though you implied it wasn't necessary, just say so and I'll dig it up for you.

5. As a staunch Wikipedian and someone who would take Wikipedia over any other encyclopedia in virtually every situation, I just want to point out that Wikipedia as a whole is incredibly biased against intelligent design and any sort of theism. Sure, individual editors are theists and creationists, but the vast majority are not, and tend to be incredibly rude towards those who dare to believe anything other than what they consider to be The Truth That Cannot Ever Ever Be Proven Wrong, which, quite frankly, only brings to mind the Inquisition of the Catholic Church in which they tortured people to death for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun. So I wouldn't really take any particular Wikipedia article as fact in such a controversial subject, and while linking to carbon dating for a basic introduction to the theory behind it is perfectly acceptable IMO, articles written on controversial theories like Origin of birds are questionable for NPOV.

So after that absurdly long-winded preamble which didn't really say much (for which I apologize... I talk too much!), here's my counter-argument to your counter-argument of my counter-argument to someone else's argument... I think. You essentially stated that birds evolved from dinosaurs because 1) a bunch of guys who have scientific degrees say so (see my above comment about the Earth revolving around the Sun... just because people who call themselves scientists say something doesn't mean it's right. Not that they're certainly wrong, but honestly, just because someone says so doesn't prove a thing.), 2) a questionably biased Wikipedia article says so, and 3) two sources of which the first I can't access without paying for it (if you have the text or would trust me with your account information, please send me it, so I can read the article) and the second offers nothing even remotely that proves birds and dinosaurs are connected. It's a listing of fossils with absolutely nothing about how those fossils are supposedly connected or related. Just a list. If there was an introductory page you forgot to link to, please give me that link instead so I can read the actual argument for dinosaurs-to-birds rather than a disjointed list of fossils.

On to your concluding remarks: Yes, the Bible says things not compatible with evolution. That's why Christians don't believe in it! Yes, the Bible says God created birds, then land animals. That's why Christians don't believe birds evolved from dinosaurs! You can't apply evolution to the Bible when they are clearly incompatible. One or the other is correct; based on the available evidence, I am forced to conclude that the Bible is the correct one. As to your other reference... First Corinthians does not have a thirty-ninth chapter, so I'm going to presume you meant chapter 15, verse 39. Doesn't seem like a "crude taxonomy" to me... seems like when read in context, Paul is answering the questions some had about the nature of resurrected bodies. They were assuming they would be like our earthly bodies, but Paul is saying, "No, look around you. Every different thing- fish, birds, animals, humans- have different bodies. Our heavenly bodies will be different, too." It had nothing to do with a scientific taxonomy; context is everything!

As to Christianity, I don't quite see how you intend to debate over intelligent design by way of the Christian God, which is what I'm talking about here, versus evolution with atheism implied without touching the subject of Christianity. Yeah, there's no particular reason for us to get in depth into theology, because that's not the point here, but yes, I will be using the Christian worldview in my arguments, because that's what my half of the argument is! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It's fine if you want to talk about radioactive dating but the question from Rockreader was about carbon-dating.

2. It looks like we agree now how Carbon dating works. I also agree, (or "admit" if you view this discussion as adversarial) that its accuracy depends on the assumed C14/12 ratio in the atmosphere when the organism was alive. Carbon dating research is focused on quantifying such error sources, and testing the method against available time references such as tree rings, identifiable historical objects and sea sediments. Any claim that carbon dating researchers are all deluded, incompetent or dishonest while an ancient pre-scientific story trumps over the foundations of modern physics, biology and cosmology needs more credible evidence.

3. If a sourced quote was removed from Wikipedia then you should see who removed it and why. Radioactive decay rates, such as that of C14, are very constant, meaning better than 1% predictability of their half lives. My question is neither moot nor answered. It requires a RS for what Libby allegedly said.

4. I have never thought that smear tactics are an ethical form of persuasion so I didn't count on you answering Yes, I try to sow doubt. I have belatedly struck out my words "If not.." because I really am interested in your information.

5. Thank you for correcting my reference to 1. Cor. 15:39. I have said what I want to say. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alinnisawest, I notice that a week has passed with no further comment on this thread from you. Therefore I shall take your page off my watch list (you may contact me on my talk page to answer my questions). I expect you will make right the misleading answers you gave to Rockreader, not least because of how you interpret Exodus 20:16. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Much more than a week has now passed and it is disquieting to wait so long for you Alinnisawest to make good the promise you made (now in red above). This reference I think gives a well researched account of the history of intellectual dishonesty by obdurate anti-evolutionists with a religious agenda. It needs to be stipulated here that 1) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for evangelism, and 2) any reasoning that "the End justifies the Means" is egregious and contemptible sophistry and it cannot excuse spreading disinformation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3: This is me, Alinnisawest, just not logged in right now. I'd like you to take a few moments out of your life and click on that little link up there that reads "Dalek Empress". Yes, go on, it won't hurt you. My, my! What do we see here? A contributions list. Now if we were to peruse this list, we would see the last time Alinnisawest made an edit (indeed, the last time she logged in) was over a month since you posted the message above. Now, this may be difficult for you to understand, but some people do not have all the time in the world to debate things over the Internet.

I'm sorry if my reply is rude (and yes, it is), but I have had a very difficult time over the past month and a half. I did not lie to you or Rockreader (interesting how you only accused me of lying to him well after I left Wikipedia). So to come back and find such a rude comment posted on my talk page (and yes, it was) is very insulting. Kindly realize that not everyone in the world is lying to you simply because they made an off-hand comment about being willing to look up an answer for them and then, due to circumstances well outside their control, were unable to reply. My reasons for not logging in for so long, however, are absolutely none of your business, so I shall simply stop here. If you have, as you say, removed this page from your watchlist (and I do find it fascinating that after you claim to have let this discussion die, you come back to post again), then you will likely never see this message. I do not care in the slightest; it made me feel better.

So, in closing, I simply want to remind you to check a person's record before accusing them of "lying" or ignoring you. Also, politeness will very likely make them more willing to reply than rudeness. Furthermore, labeling someone a sophist because you do not find their beliefs reasonable is idiotic. I don't think I would continue this debate with you, even if I ever did come back to the Wiki, because I fear that there is no possible way we can discuss conflicting points of view without devolving into flaming.

24.180.87.119 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello User 24.180.87.117 who I believe is the same as Alinnisawest, self-styled Dalek Empress. I hope the New Year brings you peace. I have no problem understanding that how you use your time is no one's business but yours. I shall respond as best I can to what you say as follows.

"you have, as you say, removed this page from your watchlist" - my reason for telling you that is the same as for mentioning that you can reach me quickest via my Talk page, if that is what you wish.

"after you claim to have let this discussion die, you come back to post again" - this confuses me because I make no such claim

"if you'd like the information...just say so and I'll dig it up for you." - You must be aware that constitutes a promise. It seems likely to me that you will not fulfil that promise because A) it was a promise to substantiate a claim that cannot be substantiated, B) the claim itself (point 4 above) arises from motives to "sow doubt" that I would be ashamed of, and C) you choose now to excuse your statement as "an off-hand comment".

"you only accused me of lying to [Rockreader] well after I left Wikipedia" - You expressed "Whoops! Wow, yeah, just realized I totally messed the numbers up. Sorry!", I have not accused you of lying and whether you leave Wikipedia has nothing to do with your responsibility for statements that you leave standing on your page.

I stand by my indictment of the claim "the End justifies the Means" as a source of the worst degradation of human values seen now and in history.

I make no comment on your complaint that Wikipedia is biased, your attack on "guys who have scientific degrees" nor your complaints about rudeness. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the RockReader... I will answer all of your problems.

I've just realised, I'm the only person, apart from you of course, to be talking here! Should I shut up now?

Eh, I don't care! Alinnisawest (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

It's your peer from the MechQuest team, Sunsetsunrise. Could you review the McGill University for me? And once your done reading this, the review is here. Thanks, once again, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

MechQuest

About the SDF: Under Style in the VG project guidelines it says, "When writing about a game's story elements be sure to keep a real-world perspective. Simply put, do not describe fiction as fact. For example: "Link awakened after hearing a telepathic message from Zelda." This sentence talks about fiction from a perspective within its world. "The start of the game shows Link awaking after hearing a telepathic message from Zelda." This sentence talks about fiction from the perspective out of its world." Does that help explain what I was trying to say?

The Melee Combat edit: Great job! It's much better now. Could explain saving somewhere though? Sorry I haven't had much time to help out lately. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Characters in DragonFable

Thank you so much for taking on that page - I've been dreading that one ever since I started the clean-ups ^_^;. If you want any help with it, please let me know (like if you want me to tackle a few characters to give you more time on the rest, or if you have any questions on wikipolicy, or whatever). Keep up the good work! --Eruhildo (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't know why I decided to take it on, but it's just... so horrible!! I guess the only thing to do is take it a section at a time. Speaking of which, what sort of things do you think should be in each section? I don't think there needs to be an explicit listing of every single quest they feature in, maybe just a short review of their backstory. Sound OK? Oh, and I could throw in a note for Artix, Cy, and so on about how they're staff members. Alinnisawest (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfect! --Eruhildo (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Creation of Nearly 30 Accounts in the Past Two Days?

I recommend you look at WP:ACC. FunPika 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

People who do work at that process can access this page to see a list of pending requests for accounts. I have been handling account requests on that list recently. FunPika 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Samantha Barks

Hi, just thought I should explain why I have again reverted your addition of the unref tag. The "refimprove" tag should be used once sources are added and not the "unref" tag from which it shoudl be changed. I have added that tag onto the article now. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanation understood perfectly. Thank you for taking the time to explain your actions- most people wouldn't have! Alinnisawest (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I just didn't want you to think I was interfering or anything!! Good work though and Have fun!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Christainity

I saw that you have removed your membership from Wikiproject Christainity . May I know if there is there a particular reason ? We really wish to have you back onboard -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Joining the Wikiproject

I'd be happy to join the project, I was the one who initially re-vamped the AQ page a while ago. While the whole idea about AQW not needing an article till release is reasonable, most games on Wikipedia get articles before their release. Wrath of the Lich King, for example. Just incase it DOES get deleted, I'll save the page in a word document now. -AQWIKI (Talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Characters in DragonFable

Alinnisawest, I see a lot of undid edits by Guitarmaster9966 in that article. I don't see any blatant vandalism, just information added, how do you considor this vandalism? I'm not familiar with this article or it's background but I don't know why you keep undoing his edits. ♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Venezuela

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Venezuela are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. JRSP (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Some help with Artix stuff

Hey, thanks for the additions to the guidelines - anything you think would help is always welcome. I'm tying to merge the AQ and DF characters lists into one article (since they have a lot of the same characters) and was wondering if you could lend a hand? I was planning on a structure of dividing up the characters into either Heroes, Villains, and Others, or Common (to both games), AdventureQuest, and Dragonfable. Right now I haven't merged any of the data - I just have it all thrown together in one file. My working page is here. Thanks! --Eruhildo (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryazan miracle

The text was left accdentally. I've completed editing the article now. Any steps needed to confirm it doesn't have too much Russian? Serge925 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be fine. I understand now; I think I've been on vandalism watch a bit too long! Are there any English references for it? It'd be nice if you could find some, because most people on the English Wikipedia wouldn't be able to read the Russian ones. Alinnisawest (talk)

Re: Welcome

If you were talking about the ACC tool. Yup that was me. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Confussed

Help is everywhere. Generaly disparate, out of date by thousands of hours. i keep fixing typos', grammatic inconsistencies, dead links etc etc. Not bad for a newbie ;) Thankyou for your oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nation Builder (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New page patrol

What tools you recommend for new page patrol? --mboverload@ 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have to admit, I don't use any tools. I know there's some good ones out there, but I've never taken the time to look into them. *scratches head* I probably should, one of these days, shouldn't I! No, I basically just check through the Recent Changes log, and if a page is obviously spam or vandalism or whatever, I just go put the proper speedy deletion template on it. I've got a few of those memorized (db-bio and db-spam and so on) but for ones I'm not sure of the template for, I always have the list open in a different window, for easy reference. Alinnisawest (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you volunteering?

Can I yell at you then? Best O Fortuna (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In such a case, one would conclude that no one is to blame, thus no one can be yelled at. Furthermore, you may want to understand that if I so wished, I could interpret that as a threat and report you. I was not insulting you in any way, shape, or form; kindly extend such treatment to others. Alinnisawest (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Soumahe Sara

Hello!!!

Found sense out of the subject, hence removed "db-nonsense".
Happy Editing!!!

Hitro 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

Proposed deletion of SEO software

FYI, regarding User talk:Katnels, it's OK to remove PROD notices -- see the Proposed deletion policy and the instructions in the "contesting a proposed deletion" section. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Update to Artix Entertainment Staff Section

As I am Courtney Nawara (Safiria) and I work for Adam Bohn, he has requested that only 3 of our staff have our real names visible to the public. Those 3 would be Adam Bohn, Tony Deller, and Courtney Nawara. You can confirm this by emailing artix at battle on dot come and safiria at battle on dot com. I will be happy to respond to a message from my work address about this issue. Adam is concerned for the safety of our employees because of some recent nasty threats, and asked me to edit this information.- Safiria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiria (talk • contribs) 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't imagine why someone as nice as Reens would receive threats, but before I do anything, realize that I'll have to discuss it with the other editors of the AE Wikiproject. I don't own the article, so I can't make the decision on my own. --Alinnisawest(talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not Reens who is receiving threats, but because of the threats, Adam asked that only the 3 of us have our names visible to the public. Again, you can email me and Adam at our work addresses to verify this information and I will be happy to respond. Adam only wants the majority of the staff to be known by their game names. And my apologies for not being familiar with how editing and discussion works on wikipedia, I only did this at Adam's instruction, this is not something I normally do. - Safiria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiria (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed the address you gave above, and will await a reply. --Alinnisawest(talk) 23:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply Sent. - Safiria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiria (talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Soccer/Football/American Football

Hi,

you probably figured it out by now: Soccer is the American name for the game the Brits (and about every one else outside of the U.S. and probably Canada) call Football (I as a German would refer to it as Fußball - not to be mixed up with foosball, similarly pronounced, but a much smaller playing field). American Football is - well - American Football, though Americans usually will call it just Football.

As for American Footvolley: Come on, it's not a sport! And it thus should neither have an own article nor should it be mentioned in the Footvolley article.

Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it out. Mark that one down to not looking into things closely enough, then trying to tell other people to... :embarrassed: But quite frankly, I'm for either a straight redirect or merging what information can be found into the article. Apparently some people do play it, so a passing reference might be fair, but I agree that its own article is silly. --Alinnisawest(talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Petra Feriancova

Hi. You keep trying to speedy this article as a repost, but it doesn't qualify under that process, since it hasn't been subject to a deletion debate. Please brush up on your speedy deletion criteria. If you still desire the deletion of the article list it at afd. Hiding T 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It was listed under speedy deletion (and deleted) a few times already, so that's why I put that tag there. --Alinnisawest(talk) 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has only ever been deleted once, and like I say, being speedy deleted invalidates it for being speedied again as previously deleted material, per the very tag you keep tagging it with. Like I say, please brush up on your speedy deletion criteria. G4 plainly states A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. The template you have added states this as well. I understand why you are erroneously tagging it as a speedy candidate. Do you understand why you should not be so tagging it? Hiding T 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh... I think I had this article confused with another with a similar title or some such matter. :embarrassed: I'll be removing the tag immediately, then! I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused you. As a human being, I often err, and thus I apologize for the error I seem to have made in this situation. Thank you for understanding. --Alinnisawest(talk) 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also

It is very poor form to mark a tagging of an article for speedy deletion as a minor edit. Please can you desist from doing so. For help on what to mark as a minor edit, see Help:Minor edit. Hiding T 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize profusely; I was utterly unaware that I made it a minor edit. I often use the TAB and ENTER keys to navigate around the screen because I find it to be faster, and I must have accidentally hit SPACE while over the 'minor edit' checkbox. I will try to be more careful in the future; personally I detest people who try to hide their poor edits by marking them as 'minor'. Thank you for reminding me! --Alinnisawest(talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. All the best, Hiding T 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Redeye Empire

Hi, just wondering if you can help! I was speedily deleted from posting about a band named Redeye Empire, and was wondering how I might better satisfy the requirements. Thanks for your help. I've read through the guidelines but can't seem to put my finger on it. Maybe you can point me in the right direction. Thanks, Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segaldini (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick Google and I'd have to say that the band appears notable enough to have an article. Try completely rewriting the article with references and a band infobox (like the box on the right on this page) and try to show why the band is notable. What major CDs have they produced? Have they been mentioned in any major magazines, etc.? You could also ask over at the Music Wikiproject- they handle all articles dealing with music. --Alinnisawest(talk) 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! - Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segaldini (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Telogis

In response to your ASD A7 tag for Telogis, I have included several cited sources that explain the company's notability. Please check the article to see if it is no longer in violation of ASD 7. --bapinney (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I think I logged out just before you posted this, so I didn't see it last night. I've looked at the article, and I agree- the CSD doesn't apply any more. --Alinnisawest(talk) 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Brent Kessel

I've just declined a {{db-bio}} you put on Brent Kessel. There is no possible way this article meets CSD A7; whether he is notable is completely irrelevant as a speedy criteria, all that matters is that the article claims that he's notable, which this patently does. – iridescent 03:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Info

You tagged one of the contribs referred to here. Thought you should be aware of the "discussion". If you want any further info feel free to ask. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No Where else to put this....

From what i understand, you know and communicate with Adam Bohn...let me know if im wrong here, but if you do i really have a question i would like to ask him, and the only way i can find, is through you :)...So if you would be so kind as to ask him if he would care about someone making an 8-bit version of DragonFable(completely free for everyone in every way). Due to the fact that the use of trademark names and images would be illegal without consent of the copyright holder. But i would like to have an answer soon if at all possible because im wanting to make an 8-bit rpg, but im getting close to adding the characters monsters and such that would need the okay or no go from him(in other words, no answer soon means lotsa time twiddling thumbs). If more information is needed on the subject i will gladly answer any question that he may have on the subject. Thank you. --8-Bits ofDeadwolf (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I neither know Artix nor communicate with him. Once I exchanged emails with Safiria over some issues with names for the Artix Entertainment article, but that's it. I'm just another player and dedicated fan. --Alinnisawest(talk) 23:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry to take up your time, i followed a link of one of the creative members to this site, so if there is anyway to get this message to one of them i would appreciate any help you could give me in this area. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8-Bits ofDeadwolf (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine. I don't know the emails of any of them, sorry. You could look through the Help pages on the game sites for some contact information. --Alinnisawest(talk) 02:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AdventureQuest Worlds classes

You and I know that a straight up list of classes doesn't belong in the article, but Xx-Nemesis-xX does not. If you look at his contributions, you'll see that this is his first time editing Wikipedia with an account. It's very frustrating having your edits removed without even knowing why, and he probably doesn't know about the history tab yet. The edits he made are not vandalism per WP:VAND. Please be more polite to him and explain why his edits didn't add to the article (the reason is explained at WP:GAMECRUFT). Always try to be welcoming to new Wikipedians and assume good faith. Also note that you cannot revert an article for nonvandalism more than 3 times a day per 3RR, so be careful not to violate that 'cause you can get blocked for it. Thank you and keep up the good work. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

*blush* Sorry. I guess I was a bit... short with Xx-Nemesis-xX. I tend to forget how others aren't as used to Wikipedia as I am. --Alinnisawest(talk) 01:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've done worse. ^_^ Thank you for explaining that stuff to him. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ban from Mechquest

My account zaffiie252 has been banned and i dont know why. Would you be able to do anything to unban it. thanks. email me at ethanwilde@gmail.com(no spam)

Sorry, I can't help. If you have a block notice on your user talk page, you can request an unblock there. Other than that, you could contact an administrator, but I can't do anything. --Alinnisawest(talk) 08:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan Torok

I am relatively new to all this. I am trying to understand the process. What I wrote and is set for deletion was my initial draft and clearly lacking in links, etc. I thought that the Dan Torok article followed from the Otto Zehm article. I did post a rationale as requested immediately after hearing from you tonight. Any thoughts? Thanks for your help and input and clarification. Sincerely --Tayacan (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The original article was deleted because Dan Torok really didn't seem notable enough to warrant his own article. The second article was deleted because you shouldn't simply recreate a deleted article- instead, take time to carefully read the reason for it being deleted. If you still feel that it warrants an article, you could take it up at the deletion review, which reviews contested deletes.

Also, having skimmed through the Otto Zehm article, I don't think you need a separate page for the police officers involved. Mentioning them briefly in the article is fine; no need to go in depth into their backstories unless they are an incredibly notable person, like they assassinated the president or something. --Alinnisawest, Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time again. Dan Torok did not kill the president but he did kill an innocent man, Otto Zehm, and has awaken a sleeping citizenry regarding the need for independent police oversight. Torok killed a second man a year later. My Talk (is that what it is called?) where I explained the current context of police abuses here) posting was intended to help explain the importance of Torok. I would not go into each individual officer, in fact, there has been little in the way of information about them, other than Torok, due to his comments and his history, and Uberuaga because he subsquently was accused of raping a woman and was fired. Torok's killing of Zehm is the probably the most important civic event in Spokane, the second largest city in Washington State (after Seattle and just ahead of Tacoma) and the largest metropolitan area in the norther tier between Seattle and Minneapolis/St Paul.

Don't want to push my point to much. Again I am just trying to understand and do appreciate the guidance. Also sent a message to EdJohnston who originally suggested deletion. Any more thoughts to assist me? --Tayacan (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have undertaken the wikification of Otto Zehm based on input from EdJohnston, which has been very helpful. Still learning and don't know how to format references but will learn. Need time. Still hopeful on Dan Torok but do I understand it is now gone? Thanks for input. --Tayacan (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dan Torok has been deleted; when there's a link that's red instead of blue, it means the link's "broken". The thing is, there simply can't be an article for every person who has ever committed a crime, no matter how horrible the crime is or how ironic it is that they are supposed to be upholding the law to others. True, it is important that we are informed of social injustice and police abuses. But Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. It's not the place to right wrongs. It's an encyclopedia, and that's all it is. It gives facts, not advice or warnings. So while I agree the topic is important and should be discussed, it shouldn't be discussed here. --Alinnisawest, Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 14:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Help Desk

Jeez, slow down! I can barely click the edit button before you have a (very good) answer up. :-) Cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

^_^ Thanks! It all starts with asking one question of my own, then I see someone else's question that I think I know an answer for, and it all goes from there! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your remarks

even though I am affiliated with the company, if I include external links that talk about the company wouldn't that exclude me from the conflict of interest? thanks.

TelesProps (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, external links don't link to companies, they link to places for more information and the like. So I'd have to say that while it really isn't conflict of interest (per se), they would likely be removed as not contributing significantly to the facts presented. If you were to add such a link and it was subsequently removed, please abide by that, though. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 02:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ref desk

I added the semi yesterday because of a spate of IP vandalism -- I've now removed the semi. Thanks for the note, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Talking about Barack Hussein Obama's Name

Allison, I'm sorry you felt under attack, so kindly allow me to offer this view: Think of the Reference Desks as a process of Q&A where people seek and provide reliable information, in keeping with WP's being an encyclopedia of knowledge. Sometimes respondents engage in speculation and offer opinions. As many people who post questions are unregistered users and we can't know their background, a "square" editor like myself will sometimes add (or ask for) clarifications, as I and others tried to do here. No offense meant! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I understand, but please realize that I wasn't trying to start anything, either. Perhaps it was just a case of WP:BEANS, but so many people have brought up things about his name and somehow try to draw conclusions about him from that. But yes, I understand. Thank you for taking the time to explain what your intentions were! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still reeling from McCain's choice of running mate... and it's only late August! Plus it's just dawned on me that I'll be in the U.S. for nearly a month leading up to the elections and staying with people who have TVs; I hope I can handle the flak! -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

I wasn't accusing you of canvassing. I was referring to the other guy who wanted to start a Facebook group. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, just making sure! I was presuming it was meant as a joke because the article was about creating a Facebook group, but yeah, I agree that it wasn't very appropriate. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 00:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for visiting me, so I could confirm on whether the programming is working well. Now, the orange bar is changed to "friendly green color". :) However, some minor issue still remains, though. (The outline is still bright orange). --Caspian blue (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... weird. I'm not exactly a pro in CSS or anything, but I'll take a look at it... hopefully it'll be an easy fix. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you were faster than me. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, here it is:

.usermessage {
    background-color: #colour;
    border-color: #colour;
}

So basically, you just have to change the border color as well. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again!!!! I really appreciate your help. :) --Caspian blue (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem! ^_^ --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cute talk environment

Your Dalek signature and text adventure intro gave me a chuckle. Just wanted to thank you. --TransUtopian (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I wanted to drop by and say thanks for !voting in my RfA. I've just left a trail of thankspam in my wake, but wanted to leave you a slightly less robotic note. Your support is definitely appreciated and I hope you keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Cheers! TN‑X-Man

Chris Avenir

Thanks for taking on the AfD and for letting me know. I've commented there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kroog

Thanks for the heads up. :) --Golbez (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Well, that was an interesting spate of vandalism... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Userpage barnstar

Thank you very much for posting your appreciation on User:Athaenara/Gallery#Gallery Guest Book!
While following up on that, I found your delightful user page highly entertaining, so I hunted down this barnstar to offer it some recognition. — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

^_^ Thanks! I had fun with it! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 23:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I also found your userpage quite entertaining. I had the entire Zork series at one time, and this was a trip down memory lane. At least I didn't get eaten by a Grue. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do as you said, deleting the folder with the files with no success

Installation went wrong, it stopped halfway, now I have only 50 % of the files installed and it is impossible both to uninstall AND re-install ! Hey, I was gonna install a game on my computer - but something went wrong during installation, when I was gonna swap from cd 1 to cd 2 to continue the last half of the installation.

WHen i put in cd 2 it did not start up again and the whole installation thingy crashed and stopped as a message came up; "Program does not answer". And then when the game was only halfway installed, with only half of the files, it seems the install/uninstall program following with the game was among the files not installed(or i don't really know) and now it is impossible to uninstall the game again or to continue installation. And ofcourse, I can't start from scratch either when half of the gamefiles are still lying in the computers filelist in "controlpanel" and on the harddisk. when trying to uninstall, it says the uninstall-file are corrupted or not valid, so...

What must I do??

I really want to get to install the game properly and get to playing but now it seems this computer vs. the game is "locked", and only way for me to play the game would be on another computer. But of course, I have only one computer ...

AND I DO KNOW FOR 100% SURE THAT THE GAME IS COMPLETELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPUTER'S SYSTEM, and vice versa so that really isn't any problem at all. It was simply really bad luck that the program stopped working during installation. Baddest possible timing :S

Must I turn on "safemodus" or whatever it is called on my computer and delete the whole thing from there?? I don't even know how to start "safemodus"... I've only seen it the few times my computer has crashed and when it restarts it asks if I wanna start windows in "safemodus" or in normal modus. I've never been on safemodus before though, don't know if its a complicated thing. ANd I have no idea how to MANUALLY do this or if this is even the right thing that i need to do to fix this. I'm sure you know of what i speak even though i might not use the correct words...

Any kind of help and guidance about how I can clear up the mess, clear up the files and get to start a new installation from scratch again would be GREAT. I really hope to manage to fix this.

Thank you, hoping for help :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.179.208 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find the files on your hard drive, you could delete them manually, then try to reinstall the game. What sort of computer do you have? If it's a Windows, I could try to help you find the files... I'm hopeless with Macs, though. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok i'll do as you say, simply deleting the folder with all the files in and then return to see what you have in mind. although, the file/program-list in contropanel for sure still have the name of the game in the list there. that's not good i think.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.179.208 (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I have deleted the folder with all files and tried to both reinstall and uninstall, it didn't work. In fact, when i put in the cd, the install-button on the game-starting-menu is not even highlighted. its greyed out. insstead, the "play game" button is highlighted just like it would have been when the game was fully and correctly installed. so, it does not seem an easy thing this... I would have thought that maybe through "safemodus" it would have been possible to clean up, but I don't know much when it comes to the technical things about computers. You know any other potential solutions?

Krikkert7 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Safe mode probably wouldn't do much to help. What happens when you click on the "Play" button? (Also, you may want to try reposting this on the Reference Desk to get someone else's input.) --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it left something in the registry or in a hard to find location that tells the program that it's already been installed. (Modern software is messy that way; DOS was so much better - way easier to hack...) Have you tried using the "Add or Remove Programs" applet in your control panel? That may be able to fix it if you're lucky. What game is it by the way? --Eruhildo (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing or unclear

Hi, You have recently added {{'''confusing'''|date=September 2008}} to the Natabhairavi page. I have tried to add some links to more Carnatic music terminology pages and the image. Please review and if it is still confusing / unclear, kindly let me know which parts of the article needs more attention. Also, I suggest that comments can be added to the Talk:Natabhairavi page itself, so that anyone who has information to add to the article, can take up improvements. Thanks. VasuVR (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Zorbak

I did not see your message in a while. The site you linked me to was NOT a AE site, nor was it official. It was a trapper site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacheatcode (talk • contribs) 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to add new messages to the bottom of talk pages, so they're all in chronological order. Also, about the site, your use of the phrase "trapper site" is unclear. Are you implying that the site is intended to hack into your computer, steal your information, or otherwise do you harm? I highly doubt so; onrpg.com is a perfectly reputable site, has many good interviews, was mentioned in the Design Notes by Artix himself, and is an unbiased, third-party source for the information. Sources don't all have to come from AE sites- as a matter of fact, they mostly shouldn't, to avoid a biased point of view and to establish notability. Besides, AE site or no, the information still came from Artix, who is a very reputable source, seeing as he's the CEO of Artix Entertainment! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A trapper site, is a nickname ive given to sites that I must pres the Back button several times. I am still not sure if it's a problem with my browser. As for Zorbak, it was never said on a official AE site. And most people are Ancestors. So, theres a possibility that his name is not actually, Zorbak. Dacheatcode (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about your comment... are you saying that the interview with Artix that I linked you to was false? If that's what you believe, realize that Artix himself spoke about the interview and provided a link to it on the AQW Design Notes, so it's a perfectly valid interview. I'm afraid I still don't quite understand why you doubt the interview, I have no idea what you mean by "Ancestors", and yes, that's your browser's fault. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert holohan

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert holohan. I have moved Robert holohan to Death of Robert Holohan. --Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; I think that's a lot better. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 00:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tim Chey

You said, "rather POV, don't you think?" I think no, certainly not in the case of the comment on "Impact", which has no separate article and may look, from the title, like a more or less objective documentary. The POV is taken by the filmmaker himself. On the second note, the reviews, I've placed a comment on the article's talk page. You may not agree with it, but I did want to let you know there was a point to it--and the note on Impact bears directly on what those reviews might mean. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, I don't have an issue with it; there was an extensive spate of vandalism, so I was checking the Recent Changes, and the diff looked as if you were trying to remove detracting things from the article. After you brought it to my attention, I looked at the previous edits, and realized you were the one who put in the original sentence anyway, so it was just a follow-up edit, not removal of someone else's edit. So yeah, I don't think there's an issue, it just appeared bad to someone quickly checking recent edits. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Alinnisa, the article is up for deletion. Can you guide us to how to arbitrate should this arise? Thank you. Pastor Greg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PastorGreg (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is handled by the Arbitration Committee, and I don't believe it applies in this situation. Did you mean advice with the deletion debate? Well, there really isn't much to say- basically, you can get your arguments in order and vote to keep the article, if you think that should be done, and can try to convince other editors to keep it as well. One way to convince others to keep an article would be to find sources that assert the notability of Tim Chey. You could also see their concerns about the article and edit it accordingly (for example, if someone complains about uncited information, you could add more cites). However, ultimately it is for consensus to decide, and if a majority of editors voting believe the article should be deleted, you simply have to abide by that decision. More info on the process is here. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for answering my question on the talk page. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

YOU WILL BE EX-TER-MI-NA-TED!

That scared you, didn't it. Wait, what are you doing with that egg whisk? Wait...no...No...NOOOOO!

Snake? SNAKE? SNAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!

Yes. Hi. Talk to me on this number: 0800 8447473153. Or you could click the link (no, seriously, don't ring the number.)

--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate}