User talk:Waggers/Archive 5

sorry

sorry brudda, just did it for a little laugh and i forgot to remove it, my bad and it wont happen again.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.30.104 (talk • contribs) 13:47 GMT, 20 November 2006 Waggers 09:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi waggers! a friend on vmk.

you're good at this!! well hiya! i'll ttyl! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.50.68 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

wassup? me again well i love you're page! hope you like capture flag! well, i'll look for you on vmk! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.50.68 (talk • contribs) 22:46 GMT 5 December 2006

Here is my reply. Waggers 13:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Shirley.

Hi there, My name is Oli Cowling and I study photography at solent uni. I have been give shirley as an area in which to photograph. For this project I have to have a sufficient reseach folder on shirley. My first step was obviously to wiko it and found ur artical and it was great. Just wondering if you could tell me were I could possiblly find out more about the area. I dont have an account here but my email is

olis_at@hotmail.com

thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.63.197.246 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi Oli, thanks for your message. I hope you don't mind me replying here instead of by email, but I'd rather not give my own email address away at this stage. I don't have any great knowledge of the Shirley area personally - most of what's in the article came from library books. The libraries in Southampton have quite extensive local history sections, so my first suggestion is to do some research there. There's a fair bit of history to the area as well as more modern developments, and that contrast may be a key focus (no pun intended) of your photography project. One problem you might have, though, is defining the boundaries of Shirley. It's quite hard to know where Shirley ends and Freemantle / Millbrook / Lordshill etc. begin. I hope that helps as a starter for ten; do feel free to contact me here if I can assist more. By the way, if you're happy to share your photos with the world, we could do with some more photos of the Southampton area on Wikipedia! Waggers 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

southampton suburbs map

hi, i see you uploaded a map of southampton a while ago, did you get an existing map and edit it?, i ask because i have a map of another town spilt into suburbs but its an edited google maps image (every single pixel has been edited) i wont upload until you get back to me on this, thanks Thatperson 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Here is my reply. Waggers 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for that, it wasnt a problem with your map it was just that i wondered what licence to use but now ii know your was loosly google maps based ill upload with the same licence, i was doing a Banbury suburbs Map thanks for that :) Thatperson 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I just recieved this message from you not long ago.

"Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Wilson Rawls. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Waggers 23:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)"

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. I have never vandalised a Wikipedia page, and only edited about a total of two or three pages in my life. I also do not know why you would date this February 21st. I don't even know who Wilson Rawls is. This some kind of joke?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.189.124 (talk • contribs) 00:14 GMT, 17 December 2006

Here is my reply. Waggers 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Districts of Southampton

Hi - I did reply to User:88.111.96.191, although it seems that I mistakenly did so on their user page, not their talk page. I said "Hi - thanks for your note. It's much more common when disambiguating locations in England to use the ceremonial counties, so Hampshire is correct." While our policy only states that disambiguation is by county, the only other places not disambiguated by ceremonial county were a few in South Gloucestershire. I was going through all the places in Britain and Ireland to fix the titles of those that were incorrectly named, and decided that it would be wise to standardise the places in Southampton. What we really need is to agree a guideline on which type of county we disambiguate by, and then there will be no confusion. Warofdreams talk 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Districts Map

Hi, what are you actually using to define a "district" on the map of Southampton you've drawn? I also notice rather more are in the category, and there's a certain inconsistancy about what counts as a district! AlanFord 00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is my reply. Waggers 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading, Berkshire

I've dabbed the SE Portals to use Reading, Berkshire rather than Reading. Thanks, Ian Cairns 02:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

South East England Portal

I just discovered your Portal (now referred to as our portal) and I will be getting involved. You even created it on my birthday. MortimerCat 08:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my reply. Waggers 09:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

haha

Its too bad i know him just as well or better than you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.250.250.208 (talk • contribs) 21:10 GMT, 8 February 2007

(Not only unsigned, but somewhat indecipherable and lacking context...) Waggers 09:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I noticed it poking through contribution histories, it's probably in response to your edit revert on Micheal Milligan Clark... which I've now proposed for complete deletion anyhow, since I'm not so sure the article had all that much merit in the first place. Seems to be made by either one person or a group of friends at Southern Utah University just to see what happens. -Bbik 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I appologise for the Vanadlism this account added to the page - it is my personal computer and a recent guess decided to go on Wikipedia - I appologise for this, please do not block me from the service as I did not intend this whatsoever and believe wikipedia is a good and helpful service. 81.79.33.19 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:66.222.50.11

You wrote:

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Lung cancer page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Waggers 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My comment is not nonsense or vandalism. Here it is, fleshed out with additional links.

Passive smoking has been fraudulently trumped up as a risk factor for lung cancer in order to force smoking bans on an unwilling public, by politically-connected charlatans. They committed scientific fraud by ignoring the role of carcinogenic viruses as a cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. The US EPA's ETS report was written by handpicked anti-smokers, using illegal pass-through contracts to conceal their role. The Inspector General of the EPA stated that in the case of the Brown subcontract, "EPA program personnel and ICF simply circumvented the contracting officers" altogether, clearly a violation of proper procedures.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046746882-6952.html?start_page=33&end_page=39

And, in a statement before OSHA informal public hearing on proposed rulemaking vis-a-vis Indoor Air Quality, est. date April 5, 1994, A. Judson Wells confessed to his role. He said that "From 1989 to 1993 I was an unpaid consultant to Kenneth G. Brown, Inc., a subcontractor to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in their work leading up to the publication of their report: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. I am a coauthor of that report. More recently I have consulted, again unpaid, for the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration on health effects of passive smoking and am testifying on their behalf today."

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2081784668-4691.html

On the board of directors of the corrupt contracting firm, ICF, was Frederic V. Malek, a crony of George W. Bush, and also a big shot in the Democratic Party, former California Rep. Tony Coelho.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/856200/0000950109-94-000884.txt

This is the truth about how the US EPA ETS report was written, and then released in the closing days of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.50.11 (talk • contribs) 23:59 GMT, 17 February 2007

Here is my reply. Waggers 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:66.222.50.11 reply

Waggers wrote: "Wikipedia policy is that articles should not show bias and should cite sources for every statement. There is plenty of evidence that passive smoking can cause lung cancer, and plenty of public support for smoking bans; therefore to suggest that passive smoking has been "fraudulently trumped up as a risk factor for lung cancer in order to force smoking bans on an unwilling public" is simply not true."

1. How many sources for each statement would you like? I don't want to be accused of spamming if I dumped every ETS & lung cancer study and every HPV & lung cancer study on you. The studies are listed on these pages:

http://www.smokershistory.com/etslies.htm

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

2. There is NOT plenty of evidence that passive smoking can cause lung cancer, because ALL of the studies have been defective. There has not been a single one that considered (or even discussed) the role of HPV, which is involved in more than ten times as many cancers as those claimed for ETS, and of the great liklihood of spurious "ETS risks" caused by confounding.

3. The supposed "public support" for smoking bans is the entirely the product of a systematic campaign of propaganda and censorship by the mass media, and is therefore no more reputable than a Communist election.

Waggers said: "Furthermore, your addition only makes reference to smoking bans and research in the USA. Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia and any country-specific sections should be clearly marked as such."

The studies the EPA reviewed came from around the world, and are the same ones reviewed and cited by the IARC and everyone else.

Waggers said: "One last thing - when using talk pages, pleas sign your posts using four tildes. Thanks, Waggers 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC"

66.222.50.11 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my reply. Waggers 10:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:66.222.50.11

Waggers wrote: "Thanks for your response. It's very clear that you're trying to add bias to the article - all your sources are from pro-smoking sites, for example, and you're making huge generalisations that simply aren't true. Wikipedia isn't the place for opinionated arguments, and I refuse to engage in such an argument here - this isn't a discussion forum or message board. We want our articles to be from a neutral point of view and I'm unrepentant in reverting your edit. If I see further biased edits I'll gladly do the same again. Waggers 10:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"

First, to your accusation that I am "trying to to add bias to the article" because "all your sources are from pro-smoking sites." Wrong - I am correcting the bias of the existing article, which was written from an exclusively anti-smoker point of view. The existing Wiki article is a flagrant coverup. It fails to note the political corruption of the EPA report, which was, in fact, written by handpicked anti-smoking activists who violated federal procurement regulations, as admitted by the EPA Inspector General, and as confessed to by one the authors. What is your objection to the inclusion of these facts - that they weren't published by the (biased) mass media?

The ETS reports which you consider such unassailable evidence are not neutral. Not one of them has considered the role or even admitted the existence of human papillomavirus in the lung cancer they seek to blame on secondhand smoke. They are deliberately excluding essential scientific evidence, in order to achieve a political goal. This is broad generalization which IS true, because the anti-smoking interests which concocted these reports have all systematically committed the same lie-by-omission for decades. They have even had the same kingpin, namely Jonathan M. Samet, for decades - who, when he wasn't engaged in these reports, was testifying in court against the tobacco industry! Is this what you call "unbiased"?

Furthermore, the so-called "pro-smoking sites" consist of ONE pro-smoking site, my own, "The History of the Conspiracy Against Tobacco," http://www.smokershistory.com - which links to the anti-smoker website, tobaccodocuments.org, and to the National Library of Medicine and/or individual journal articles for its material.

In other words, your point of view is NOT neutral - it is savagely hostile to free inquiry, and fiercely protective of official lies - which is precisely the politically corrupt, anti-scientific mentality that has destroyed any claim to credibility of the scientific establishment - and now of Wikipedia as well.

CarolASThompson 19:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste any more of my time responding to this inane drivel. Waggers 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

fish fingers

Dear Mr. Waggers,

You may have thought that the addition I made to fish finger was a test or perhaps even vandalism, because of your different cultural and linguistic background. To you, they are fish fingers, and there is no confusion. In the USA, they are fishsticks. Every week, in thousands of elementary schools in the US (which have a "hot lunch program"), an adinistrator comes on the public address system and announces the weekly menu. And what do the students hear?

"This week's lunch menu: Monday: Spaghetti and meat sauce, Tuesday... ... and Friday, Fishsticks and tartar sauce." The truth is, it sounds virtually indistinguishable from Fishdicks and tartar sauce. Since there is no written version of this announcement, many youngsters think they are eating fish dicks, or at least something formed of fish and made to look like a dick. I'm not sure if dick is a common work for penis in the UK, but it is the most common term of art in the US.

So, whilst my addition to the Trivia section might have seemed superfluous to you, and it was written humorously, it was not without meaning or significance.

Feel free to add it back or not, depending upon your sense of humor (or would you spell it humour?) / decency.

Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.26.75 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Treaty of Versailles

Hi Waggers, Please contact me regarding your msg of vandalism from my IP on the Treaty of Versailles entry. thx, - artifactory Artifactory 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

updated at artifactory - Artifactory

Datestamp for archiving: Waggers 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

editcountitis

I was trying to be funny and failed miserably. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi. I meant to say something the other day and I forgot. You said on the BI talk page that I seem to want to include every reference I can find.. I don't want to include "every" reference, and there are a ton more on the page that eric (i.e. not me) put together that I didn't try to include although they say much the same thing. Also, please note that about a week ago I opposed the kind of text I'm now proposing since I didn't believe there was sufficient reference to support it - until eric pointed out that there was a whole page of refs available. In the context of a seriously disputed piece of text I do want to include the references that are relevant and that come from a variety of sources not only Irish or UK ... to try (apparently unsuccessfully) to avoid having the refs called Republican POV or something - which has happened repeatedly on this page. I also want the text to reflect the available reference. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, but the page has been the source of so many POV accusations that sticking to (and having) references seems the only way of keeping the page at all reasonable. Hughsheehy 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply. The issue with the BI page at the moment is that many editors don´t seem to be reading the references...just rubbishing them. Hughsheehy 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Prepare for the mop

You're going to get it any minute, good luck and I hope you become a successful moderator. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And here it is. Congratulations, with nearly unanimous support, you're now an admin. Spend some time on the admin reading list and make sure to ask questions if you're unsure. Other than that, I'm confident you'll do well, jump in and help out with the backlogs, keep up the good work, and again congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got the swagger (which is what come to my mind when I see your name), congrats. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. The first thing I'd suggest is try to remove underscores when you copy and paste links. "John Doe" looks much better than "John_Doe". Or you can mask the link, e.g. [[John_Doe|John Doe]]  :-) BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheerful comment

you idiot! the change i made to Tsunade (Naruto) made sense because that character has no dub voice actor yet and i was simply correcting him by erasing the name under VA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.234.42 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 April 2007.

Datestamp for archiving: Waggers 08:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:`.Thirty Thr33

Normally I would have come and asked first but you didn't appear to be around. I have unblocked and then reblocked that user. It's an abusive sockpuppet of User:Burgz33 who is blocked for a month. The guy just won't learn. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just thought and came back to tag the above section with a header and a unsigned template. Some people remove them but I just leave them, such as this one. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Highlands Hospital

Dear Waggers, you seem very concerned to nail Enfield Primary Care Trust as associated with the end of Highlands Hospital. Whilst the PCT doubtless has numerous sins on its head, it was not involved with the demise of Highlands. The PCT was founded only in 2001/2, and was not a successor of the Enfield Health Authority which was closed down in 1996. It is a quite separate organization, with very different powers and remit to the Health Authority. Best regards, --Smerus 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)