User talk:Pete.Hurd
Archives
- 2005 User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive1
- 2006 User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive2
- 2007 User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive3
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beefeater-plays-for-lovers-cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
things seem quieter
Just ask away. If too complicated, I'll tell you and defer it. DGG (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
not sockpuppet
I am not sockpuppet of anyone; I do not know this mathstatwoman. This is untrue and unfair. If you want me to go away, please help get rid of my page and discussion, and I will stop editing, but please do not say untrue things about me. I do not know how to leave Wikipedia. I was just trying to help, but do not like false accusations under my name. Thank you.
- Regarding above, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alfred_Legrand. CM (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for rollback
Hi Pete, just to let you know I've processed your request and you should be able to use the tool now. If you want information on any aspects of it, please feel free to check out
- Oops - turned out Viridae did it at the same time I was going to - can't take any credit here :) Good luck with it. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppet ring
Based on the report you recently created at
M.I.A. (band) AfD
Hi, M.I.A. (band) is being AfD'd. I have no idea about the notability of this band, but you're probably more qualified to comment than most. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
that Conley guy
He's perked-up. Please see: User talk:Fram#User:Runningman01 and offer your two-bits. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like this is sorted for now. FYI, I'm still keeping an eye on User:Jon Hobynx. I'm also interested in finding a wikiproject or something to ask to do a clean-up on the various bios these accounts have diddled with. Ideas? Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Subhumans-Incorrect-Thoughts.jpg
Thanks for uploading
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
I'm sorry you felt I am inexperienced to become an admin. I hope that by performing more edits on Wikipedia in the next few months that I could possibly change your mind by my next RfA, possibly around May 2008. In addition, if you have reviewed my edit history, you would have found that I have edited pages covering aviation, higher education, Hong Kong, San Francisco Bay Area, Florida, engineering, roads and highways, schools, and my latest project, getting
Watchlist
Thanks! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Game theory FAR
Jon Hobynx
- Jon's bagged and tagged. See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/R:128.40.76.3 and add anything you can. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The Beatnigs
I undeleted it and sent it to
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Modified Rankin Scale, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.strokecenter.org/trials/scales/rankin.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on
Glad you enjoyed that. Another Navy quote is from Winston Churchill (paraphrased). After being criticized for jeaprodizing the traditions of the British Navy he said: "The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash." --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
please revist
Please revist the Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jess Dannenberg. He seems to have a remarkable publication record, besides the paper giving rise to the discussion in the article. DGG (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Edmonton meetup
Hello - I'm contacting you with this message because you have listed youself in
Image:Gavin_McInnes.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,
Re: The Proletariat
No problem; I'd never heard of the band and couldn't find any information myself. After you posted sources it was pretty clear that the band was notable- this is why it's good to have people with knowledge of the subject around. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What he said. :) Thanks for letting me know you provided references, I have no problem changing my decision in response. Terraxos (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
RfA comment
Hi, Pete.Hurd, Of all the votes on
- P.S. Looking at his bio I hope it was Kizys because I bought a signed test pressing of Glenn Branca's Symphony No. 6 at his sale on eBay a few years ago. -talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)]
- How sad to try to understand a comment and not be deemed worth the time for a reply. Or did I misunderstand? -talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)]
- Huh? You asked a question? (FWIW, I don't uinderstand "but didn't notice that you had interacted with Jimmy Wales or had dealings with MIT yourself" of what that was supposed to relate to). Are you trying to make some point I ought to respond to? Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again. I was responding to your comment and vote on my RfA. And trying to be understanding of it. I know sometimes that asking a direct question is the best way to receive a reply, but thought there was enough shared interest in music that you would understand. That's all right. Maybe I should have asked what you liked about Hüsker Dü? Regarding Mr. Wales and MIT, you brought them up, echoing someone else, in your comment on my RfA. I didn't see in your materials or article that you had dealt with them so I wondered why you brought them up. No problem, people can say whatever they like in RfAs. Hope this helps. -talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)]
- Hello again. I was responding to your comment and vote on my RfA. And trying to be understanding of it. I know sometimes that asking a direct question is the best way to receive a reply, but thought there was enough shared interest in music that you would understand. That's all right. Maybe I should have asked what you liked about Hüsker Dü? Regarding Mr. Wales and MIT, you brought them up, echoing someone else, in your comment on my RfA. I didn't see in your materials or article that you had dealt with them so I wondered why you brought them up. No problem, people can say whatever they like in RfAs. Hope this helps. -
- Huh? You asked a question? (FWIW, I don't uinderstand "but didn't notice that you had interacted with Jimmy Wales or had dealings with MIT yourself" of what that was supposed to relate to). Are you trying to make some point I ought to respond to? Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- How sad to try to understand a comment and not be deemed worth the time for a reply. Or did I misunderstand? -
Any relation?
Any relation to Peter Hurd?
Smallbones (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sexual selection
Hi, Pete. Could you see Talk:Evolution#Sexual_Selection and maybe make some remarks? Graft | talk 21:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
The Haldane's dilemma article is terrible, it reads as if some creationist wrote it. I haven't looked around but I take it that this is a problem in open-edited encyclopaedia? --I am not a dog (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Lady Aleena's RfA
Pete.Hurd...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
And also
You discuss the relationship between
My Recent Rfa
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:PROF revision suggestion
I am trying to "test the waters" to see if there is enough interest in revising
Thanks!
Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Signaling
Hi Pete. I hope all is well. It's summer, and so I have time to waste on wikipedia. I started Sir Philip Sidney game. I plan to add the following stuff over the next few weeks: (1) empirical studies of cost, (2) extensions to continuous signals, goods, and need and (3) Bergstrom and Lachmann's criticisms about evolvability. Anyway, let me know what you think. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Bayesian game high importance
Hey-I upgraded Bayesian game to high importance. It seems like an essential part of game theory to me. But I see (noticed after the fact) that you set it "mid", so if you disagree I might concede the point. Cretog8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I just posted a comment at this AfD debate. I tried to interpret what you said and hopefully I didn't muddle it up too badly. Please have look. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Jessika Folkerts
Hi Professor Hurd. I closed the AfD before looking at some of your posts about User:Jessika Folkerts, but I looked at them afterwards, and I am well aware that the Peter L. Hurd article is not self-promotion. You may rest assured that I am keeping an eye on this case, and that I can see where the real policy violations are. Happy editing! -- SCZenz (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
RfA Review
Hello Pete.Hurd. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the
]Thanks for getting in touch. Feel free to revert any of his edits as it's clear they are unwelcome. --Rodhullandemu 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. At least we know now that anyone trying to reintroduce that content is very likely going to be a sockpuppet. Makes things easier. Cheers! --Rodhullandemu 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Michael Potts: AfD dialogue
Please revisit Michael Potts article (of which I am the principal author). Contrary to an assertion by one commenter that Google News only offers one link to "michael potts" +"rocky mountain institute," I have provided a link showing that in fact, there are eight links. For example, I have just added to the article, under External Links, a Denver Post interview with Michael Potts on March 31, 2007, in which he speaks about his personal and business philosophies. Thank you for your time. I do appreciate your help in strengthening this article.Jhutson64 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Little help?
Hey. you don't know me, but I was skimming deletion comments and I noticed that you have a PhD in biology. I don't, but I've attempted to rescue
]WP:PROF revision draft - revisited
I am trying to restart the process of revising
As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.
(Anna Quist (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
RfA
Hitler's images from that day: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Just one more: (I can pull more if you wish) [6]
I'm not hiding anything here, but do you think adding these links would be helpful? — BQZip01 — talk 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- "do you think adding these links would be helpful?" No. The question isn't "how bad did the vandalism get?", but more "were you blocked for 3RR for good reason?" and "can you convince your fellow wikipedians that you have learned far more from the episode than not to break 3RR?". The latter two aren't addressed by answering the former. Make sense? Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I was indeed blocked for a good reason, but my intent was to stop what I thought was vandalism (at the time). After 3 months with discussion with this particular user, and an RfC, the bus stopped rolling and he got off Wikipedia. While I don't see that necessarily as a positive, it was an example of a user hellbent on righting a perceived wrong when in fact the entire article was well-referenced. Given that context, I still believe his actions to be in bad faith. As such, I still categorize them as vandalism, but that is only in retrospect. — BQZip01 — talk 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:PROF revision draft - move to proceed with the replacement
I would like to try to give another try and make a motion to proceed with the preplacement of the
Hi
Hi. I noticed that you voted in the
Nobel winners
Hello--Mind if I copy your comment from here to here, or do you want to add a comment yourself? (Of course, I've just finished reassessing the winners, but O well.) I'm not at all sure I agree, but you're making points nobody else did. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
ANI
What happened to the image discussion? Corvus cornixtalk 06:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Human Sexuality Barnstar | ||
For intelligent and scholarly contributions to the Biology and sexual orientation page. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks... I was actually wondering if I'd stopped making sense there awhile ago. Cheers Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice work on purple glove syndrome
If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
robert trumpler
hi. i completely agree with your keep decision based on the new references. however, the National Academy of Sciences biography link still seems to be dead. (this was the only source when i nominated the article for deletion) thanks :) xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- hey, thanks for the quick reply. really the point of my message though was that that link is dead for me. is it dead for you too? it seems like it could be an important link so i haven't removed it because maybe there is a typo or something. actually maybe it's just dead for me though because i'd be surprised if no one else had looked at it throughout the whole afd. xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you lend a hand?
I got your name from the Hatsu Akiko deletion debate -- and thanks for closing it. I'm one of the people who voted to keep the article, and if you check my User Page, also a biologist, with my doctorate from City University of New York back in 1969. But that's not what I'm here about.
Right now, I'm in the middle of an argument/debate with an editor who seems not to know very much about research, assembling a bibliography, or writing for Wiki. There are two places -- one is
"Outside Views" typo
Pete.Hurd: There's a typo in your contribution to the "Outside Views" section on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esterson
You wrote Esterson (1989). This should read (1998).
The article in question is here: http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm
If your interested, a more comprehensive article on the seduction theory and Freud's later accounts of the episode is here: http://www.esterson.org/Mythologizing_psychoanalytic_history.htm
Amended posting on Jeffrey Masson page
Pete.Hurd: I have posted amended paragraphs on the Jeffrey Masson page. My reasons are given on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esterson#Esterson.27s_reply Esterson (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Opinion requested
Pete.Hurd: Could you give your opinion on a difference of views on a posting at the Mileva Maric discussion page? [7] Esterson (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Scraping foetus off the wheel.jpg
Thanks for uploading
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
request
Please take a look at the latest developments in
RfA thanks
Seasons Greetings
Request to move article Zero-sum (game theory) incomplete
You recently filed a request at
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
- Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
- Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
- Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.
If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at
saboteuse
Hi Pete,
Back in 2006 you commented in the talk page of Sexual Selection on newly contributed text on a "female sabotage" hypothesis explaining female preferences for ornamented males. I just spotted it now, and am baffled to be honest why it's still there. Regardless of the merits of this idea, it really has had zero uptake in the field, so it might be a bit rich put it on apparently equal standing with the likes of Darwin, Fisher, and Zahavi. The subsequent paragraph, summarising another paper by the same author, comes apropos of nothing. Why didn't you take action? Evlshout (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)