Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 4:
Line 4: − − I am '''''not''''' a troublemaker! Go bury your head! --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 17:06, 12 November 2007 (EST) − ==Sschultz== − Ed - given that Sschultz is not the first to ever create pages by copying (have you seen the ships registry of the United States Navy?) I've reverted your block of him. Also, given that there is an active debate - I would like to ask you to hold off on any more blocks until the debate reaches its conclusion. Let's not make things any more tense then they already are.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:30, 12 November 2007 (EST) − :Exactly - 3 points. If he had truly counted them as most wanted - he would've gave himself seven points per article (4 for a short + 3 for most wanted) - which he did not.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 21:12, 12 November 2007 (EST) − − ::Look again [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:SSchultz/Contest3&oldid=333226 here], e.g., at [[census water]]. How many points did he claim for it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:17, 12 November 2007 (EST) − :::He claimed 3 points. Agreed? (I can tell because I see the multiplication at the bottom:101x3=303) - however, if he were counting it as most wanted it would've been 7--21:19, 12 November 2007 (EST) − − ::::One last time: he counted 4 points for it as a new article, plus 3 points for it as a "most wanted". Please note that all but 5 of his now articles were also listed a second times for "most wanted" credit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:53, 12 November 2007 (EST) − Ahh - I see what happened - lucky me, I looked at one of the 5 that wasn't both places and then assumed he had listed them once- alright you're definitely right there - and I just got your email by the way - sorry, my email client was screwing up and I couldn't log on - but I completely understand now.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:19, 12 November 2007 (EST) − − == Ta == − − Thanks Ed. Good to 'see' you here. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 13:01, 19 November 2007 (EST) − − == Hey Ed == − − Are you sure you want your talk page to be a deletion candidate? (Check your category below) ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:15, 19 November 2007 (EST) − − Please block moobies immediately! [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 15:11, 24 November 2007 (EST) − − == I just sent you a private email == − − Dear Ed, − − I know you were interested in something I sent you a message about earlier. My understanding of that topic has now increased as so I thought I would send you a private email. It will arrive in a minute or two. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:12, 24 November 2007 (EST) − − == Crichton == − − The post doc was in 1969-1970. The MD even older than that. I imagine a lot has happened in scientific research since Crichton last donned a lab coat. But more importantly, It would be hard to improve your stub because you did not even define the term: the phrase "consensus science" gets one hit - a wiki, at that - in an online dictionary search. http://www.onelook.com/?w=%22Consensus+science%22&ls=b&sourceid=Mozilla-search − − Essentially, the article as it stands now is some supporting quotes for an argument that is never revealed.Kind of a challenge to flesh that out. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 16:01, 28 November 2007 (EST) − − :Google returns over 30,000 hits. [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22consensus+science%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a] So what's you're point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)
User talk:Ed Poor/9 (view source)
Revision as of 20:49, December 10, 2007
, 20:49, December 10, 2007no edit summary
<!-- New comments at the bottom, please. -->
<!-- New comments at the bottom, please. -->
== Thanks ==
== Thanks ==