Noit

If you leave a comment on this page, I will reply on this page. If I commented on your page, I will look for your reply there. Thanks. Noit 19:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Air America Radio

The user may be ranting but we have to remain civil. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gdo01 07:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments were about content: the content of the useless rant. If you want to confront personal attacks, talk to him, as his comment contained the word "you" in it. If you like next time I wont be civil at all. I'll jusst delete shit like that. Noit 07:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Air America Radio (different event)

Would you please not delete my edit regarding Air America's ratings weather you are for against them their ratings are poor. Thanks Tannim 20:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)TannimTannim 20:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of my edit, it is legitimate analysis. A bias whould be stating Air America is hate radio (I personaly believe it is but I did not put it on the board)

Walnut Grove Secondary School

Sorry about that. I would have to guess I thought an anon was putting incorrect names, rather than correcting them; and the overcrowded note seemed a little POV. It would be nice if that statement had a citation, but it was my bad for not checking the article history; after all "Wally the Gator" certainly seems like more a mascot than "Sean Clary". :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Animal sexuality

I'm not sure what your revert was about. I assume its a mistake or you didnt read the addition?

The addition was a citation from a mainstream paper, of a quote attributed to a state wildlife department, on the subject of that section. Please let me know when you've read this and checked your revert, the diff is here.

I'm hoping this was a slip of a "revert" finger, and that you'll reply back on my talk page confirming it's okay. if not then rather than revert better we discuss on talk pages and see what the perceived problem is.

Thanks for being attentive to vandalism, but in this case it wasn't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - in light of the above just to give you a heads up, Im removing the two tags about primary sources. The person who added those clearly is unfamiliar with the page describing what a primary source is. The tags state that "The sources provided are primary sources". But in fact in both cases the sources cited are secondary sources and this is an inappropriate tag. Again just so theres no confusion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, change it back if you feel strongly about it. But, couldn't you find a quote that's not exceptionally goofy? It's a scientific article about behaviorisms and biology, but the quote you have sounds more like a comedy piece. Noit 20:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually didn't realize it was a quote when I reverted it. I just thought it was your writing. Otherwise I wouyld have talked to you instead of getting rid of it. Sorry. Noit 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to find a source that was "straight". But sources are hard to find, and often anecdotal. A citation that an official in the state department for wildlife, who see these things in the wiild more than lay people, says cross species sexual activity is attempted frequently, seemed relevant. But obviously a proper academic source saying the same would carry far more wieght.

Rather than immediately revert, I'd like your advice. The actual material is valuable and I'd like to keep it. But I agree, a humor column citation is far from ideal - it's more a case of "better than nothing if legitimate". So.... should I just leave the media citation and trim the quote down to basics? Or remove the actual quote, in order to try and make it more encyclopedic in style? Or how would you handle it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel like the factualness of that quote is in doubt. It will put everyone who reads it in the same situation we're in now, wondering if it's true or a joke. In the context of this encyclopedia it almost makes it useless. If you can't find a better source, I would say, use the quote as is, but change your actual article text to reflect the doubt. Noit 20:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fanon

"Fanon" is a story created by fans that takes place within a predefined fictional setting. In other words, it is something that has no place on Wikipedia. I apologize that my edit summary (or lack thereof) did not adequately summarize my removal. I tend to gear my edit summaries towards those familiar with the topic, and those familiar with Naruto would know the "story of oni" is crap. I will try to make my edit summaries more user-friendly in the future. ~SnapperTo 18:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Garden of Eden Communication Attempt

Sorry, I don't have a clue how this all works. I understand how IM's work and forums, but the way Wikipedia works confuses me. Not sure if this is even the appropriate way to share a note. Please enlighten me if you are able, so I can share with you my reason for attempting to change the Garden of Eden page. Thanks.

Never mind, I think I am getting the hang of it. I saw your comment about thinking about the changes that I made. You said you would have changed it back to how it originally was, but would have asked my reasoning perhaps. I think that the wording "creation myth" stinks! I think that a more appropriate wording would be "creation teaching". The word "myth" seems to automatically imply some sort of fiction in the story. I read the "full academic meaning of the word myth", but I still think that is bogus. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. However, reading it like that does skeeve me and make me question the integrity of Wikipedia and if I want to further promote it as much as I do for web research. I simply can not align myself with a website that so blatantly stands for truth and knowledge in its purest sense, yet teaches a biased approach in something that I know is controversial, but truth.

I know this is a subject that can not be fully corrected with a simple post like this, but these are my thoughts. Now also, I want to point out that I did not want to say "creation truth" as that would obviously raise red flags, but when it comes to a "teaching", it does not matter if it is true or false, it is still a teaching. I guess that is main point I am trying to make. Teaching just sounds more appropriate. I went to make that change real quick, but someone was correcting what I had changed and it did not allow me to make a second (or third correction) regarding this. Like I said I am new to this, so I was just reading what I wrote, and I was like, let me fix that. It appears every little correction is noted. I think it is funny, but probably the best way to do it. I did read something about a sandbox thing, but one time I tried that and I lost everything. I can't believe how quick you guys edit these things. You do this all for fun too, don't you? What reward do you guys enjoy/have for doing all this? Peace of mind? I know money can't be made here, right? Anyway, again, just my thoughts... I don't even know how to do links or anything either. One thing at a time I guess, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithfullyclever (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, not sure where you want to continue this conversation as I was reading your reasoning on keeping a discussion on one page. Also, I just noticed how to sign an update. Will try it. Faithfullyclever (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Something that is important to remember about Wikipedia is that it is only a regurgitation of other sources. No one is making a judgment by calling Genesis a creation myth. The idea of creation myth is an established topic with its own article. To not mention it in an article about Eden would be silly. At its best, Wikipedia should read like it is from the point of view of a person on the outside looking in. The people writing the article aren't for or against any side. When an article is good that is. For instance many pages about music artists are maintained and edited by people who don't listen to the music. I've edited the article for the drummer of Slip Knot a bunch of times even thought I've never listened to their music. What kind of information should be in a Wikipedia article is not much up for debate. There are many instructional pages dealing with how they should be written and what they should contain. Another thing to remember is that a lot of these articles use the words they do because they've been through the crucible of editing for years. This is especially true in regards to articles dealing with religion. In cases like this it's best to bring up a change you want to make on the article's discussion page. there it will be debated and the change will or wont be made by consensus. Have fun. noit (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that I am starting to get the hang of it. I am sure there is still a lot more for me to learn. Seems strange though that all I have to contribute so far are words on my talk page and others. I suppose these things take time though. I appreciate your help. Perhaps this could be a lot more fun than I thought, after all. It appears you are right about the "article's discussion page". Even if the changes are not made in general on the main article, at least they will be highlighted on that page and open for discussion. One step at a time.

I think that the coolest thing about editing here in Wikipedia is the "community atmosphere" that it seems to create. To foster that type of atmosphere in this sort of Website just seems intelligent, that is all. It is like a way to keep people honest, so to speak. Faithfullyclever (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR report about the Chinese Democracy album

Hello Noit. You filed a complaint at the 3RR board, but did not fill in the diffs that show which edits you believe to be a violation. You may add comments to the discussion if you have more to say there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)