User talk:Robin S

Hello Robin S! sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Runcorn 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply ] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs Talk pages User scripts

Hi. I temporarily removed most of your additions to this article. Please see Talk:Most recent common ancestor for details. Fred Hsu 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! This was indeed a mistake. Thanks for brining it to my attention... I'd never have known otherwise. I'd been doing semi-automated disambig repair, with 2 windows of Corhomo open at once; not sure how the mistake actually happened though. I'd better check over all my other difs.

Thanks again! –Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at the Shaffer paragraph atricle. Appreciate it! =-D -- Penubag  01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Always a pleasure to be of service! Robin S 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hair of the dog article you requested a citation for the statement "A hangover is due partly to poisoning by the toxic chemicals into which alcohol is converted by the body and the other components of the alcoholic drink, and partly to the body's reaction to withdrawal from alcohol." You must have missed the fact that it was immediately followed by "See Hangover". The Hair of the dog article is not about hangovers, there is a separate article for that. It is that article which ought, and I suspect will, fulfill your need to understand the immediate (as opposed to long-term) physiological effects of having alcohol in the bloodstream, and then removing it. You should note that withdrawal and addiction are not the same. --Bejnar 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For example the Hangover article says "When one is drinking, the blood vessels in the face, the capillaries, will dilate, giving the person a flushed appearance. When the hangover starts, the capillaries will close up again, contributing to the headache and fatigue that is often experienced in a hangover." This means that when a person ceases to drink alcohol, the body processes out the remaining alcohol and part of the physiological changes that occur with this withdrawal of alcohol are a shrinkage of the capillaries. --Bejnar 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I notice that you have had some recent discussion with user:FDuffy about the undue weight he may be giving to some aspects of Biblical scholarship (see my comment on his talk page) and archaeological hypotheses. I have started an attempt to provide minor rewordings that will reflect a more neutral position while also stating the higher criticism view, but I do not wish to do so without at least some consensus from others who have been active on these pages. For now, I am generally only inserting terms like the word "some" before phrases such as "Biblical scholars believe..." but I am looking for more suggestions to best portray these things in a more objective light. Any input would be appreciated. One option may be to revert the article to a previous version and insert a section like "Tribe of X and higher criticism," which would then include the source(s) recently cited. ◄Zahakiel► 07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that following that option would be turning the article into a "debate" (according to the manual of style), which the manual considers to be a bad thing. Also, you are not meant to revert articles without good reason, and certainly not because you disagree with the presentation.

I'm a bit curious, to be honest, why you consider the academic view to be non-neutral; I'm not one to favour politicising science. --User talk:FDuffy 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to this in the appropriate section of FDuffy's talk page. If this user has any further questions to ask me, my talk page is available for comment (this is Robin's space). ◄Zahakiel► 02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the article on British spelling; the information about the OED was particularly illuminating. BTW, congratulations on getting into Cambridge. :-) Pericles899 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though the creator, Pom-something (forgive me for forgetting if you read this Pom) really wanted to change the name of the original article (and had a decent reason for wanting to do so) It might be best to do a sort of semi-merge, and cut and paste the references from Biological imperatives to Biological imperative, then move the Biological imperative page to Biological imperatives, with a resulting redirect. Just a thought. Anarchia 08:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks like you nominated this article for deletion by creating its 2nd nomination, but I could find no evidence that it was actually the second nomination. It was deleted by Proposed Deletion, true, but the count of AFDs only counts actual deletion debates for which a debate page (in the form of

No problem - happens all the time. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a minor point, but I noticed your reversion a few days ago of an edit by

Thank you for your post which I have copied above. Generally I avoid the commonwealth/USA english differences. And I do agree with you that it is a minor point. But since you brought it up, I do want to explain a bit more of my logic. Your statement that

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling), I had not noticed that one before. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your speedy reply. I was mostly curious to see whether there was something that I had missed, either in general policy or pertaining to this particular case; I have noticed that edits like ArdClose's (and, often, subsequent revisions) are very common, regardless of the prevailing use in the article, and am never really sure what to do about them. Robin S (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I am also unsure of how to handle the usage differences. It would be nice if Wikipedia would set up a suggested standard that could be followed as a general rule, but noting that specific article exceptions based on

concensus would also exist. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You recently commented on the Jesus article your belief that the article should use either BC/AD or BCE/CE and not both- the discussion has started upagain on Talk:Jesus about which form should be used- your opinions are wanted! Please join the discussion. Gavin (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of mathematics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Form. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Robin S. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robin S. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robin S. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]