Welcome...
Hello, BiologicalMe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Adrian J. Hunter(
talk•
contribs) 08:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have been trying to add a collage of biological images, but it has been deleted from common.wikimedia.org because the sources of the images were not clearly used with permission. I haven't seen the image, so I can't guess whether these were your own images or not. If they were you own so that there is no copyright violation, let me know on my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
as to where you found that youtube link you posted at AFD, cheers Flat Out let's discuss it
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kent Hovind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NCSE. 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) 08:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kent Hovind may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kent Hovind may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Kent Hovind may have broken the
syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the note on the new developments on Kent Hovind. I am reviewing the Court's orders issued today (Monday, May 18, 2015), and I'll have something for the article in a little while, unless someone else beats me to it.
The Order at entry 197 is indeed a judgment of acquittal on the criminal contempt count. The Court essentially pointed out that there was nothing in the forfeiture order that stated that Hovind was prohibited from doing what he did (filing the lis pendens action, for example). You can't be guilty of violating a court order if you did not disobey the order. And you can't disobey an order that does not actually order you to do something or not do something.
The Order at entry 198 grants the prosecutor's motion for dismissal without prejudice on the other three counts (the ones on which a mistrial occurred several weeks ago). This means that the government is free to go back to a Federal grand jury and ask the grand jury for a new indictment on those charges.
Stay tuned. Famspear ( talk) 02:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, first: Here's the text of the Court's order at docket entry 197:
--Docket entry 197, May 18, 2015, United States v. Kent E. Hovind and Paul John Hansen, case no. 3:14-cr-91/MCR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Div.) (italics not reproduced).
Essentially, there were two court orders discussed here. One was the forfeiture order, by which Hovind, etc., lost the properties. THAT order is the ONLY order that the jury found Hovind guilty of violating. What the Court has concluded is that there is nothing in the language of THAT PARTICULAR ORDER that prohibited Hovind from doing anything. Thus, the Court has rendered a judgment of acquittal on the criminal contempt charge.
Stay tuned. Famspear ( talk) 02:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:
Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The subject of the article has repeatedly removed referenced content about diploma mills without consensus which is why I added the COI template. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Kent Hovind is not a "tax protester", he is a CONVICTED tax evader. The evidence is cited on his Wikipedia page already, so why the reversion? VeroniqueBellamy ( talk) 03:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear VeroniqueBellamy: Editor BiologicalMe and editor Ravensfire are correct. These are technical legal terms. The correct term for Hovind is "tax protester." That's the term used by the courts. Hovind was never charged with tax evasion (26 USC section 7201). He was charged with willful failure to PAY tax, which is a separate crime. Please review the article. I'll explain more on your own talk page. Famspear ( talk) 03:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The guy who designed a video game around the concept of taxation must be almost as twisted as I am. After sixteen years of representing taxpayers in dealings with the Internal Revenue Service, I still enjoy doing it. Famspear ( talk) 04:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you wrote on the article talk page for the Atrioventricular Block that my partner and I have been working on editing. I know you had mentioned if we needed any advice or help that you might be available and I would like to send you the information we have comprised to add to the page and see if you wouldn't mind looking over it and possibly giving us feedback? I would really appreciate your expertise and am looking forward to your response. All of the information that is below is what I have added in addition to the article. Please let me know your thoughts. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (Under the category of Second-Degree AV Block): Mobitz I is characterized by a reversible block of the AV node. When the AV node is severely blocked, it fails to conduct an impulse. Mobitz I is a progressive failure. Some patients are asymptomatic; those who have symptoms respond to treatment effectively. There is low risk of the AV block leading to heart attack. Mobitz II is characterized by a failure of the His-Purkinje cells resulting in the lack of a supra ventricular impulse. These cardiac His-Purkinje cells are responsible for the rapid propagation in the heart. Mobitz II is caused by a sudden and unexpected failure of the His-Purkinje cells. The risks and possible effects of Mobitz II are much more severe than Mobitz I in that it can lead to severe heart attack.
(Under the category of Third-Degree AV Block): The heart’s electrical signals are slowed to a complete halt. This means that none of the the signals reach either the upper or lower chambers causing a complete blockage of the ventricles and can result in cardiac arrest. Third-degree atrioventricular block is the most severe of the types of heart ventricle blockages. Persons suffering from symptoms of third-degree heart block need emergency treatment including but not limited to a pacemaker.
In order to differentiate between the different degrees of the atrioventricular block (AV block), the First-Degree AV block occurs when an electrocardiogram (ECG) reads a PR interval that is more than 200 msec. This degree is typically asymptomatic and is only found through an ECG reading. Second-Degree AV block, although typically asymptomatic, has early signs that can be detected or are noticeable such as irregular heartbeat or a syncope. A Third-Degree AV block has noticeable symptoms that present themselves as more urgent such as: dizziness, fatigue, chest pain, pre syncope, or syncope.
Laboratory diagnosis for AV blocks include electrolyte, drug level and cardiac enzyme level tests. A clinical evaluation also looks at infection, myxedema, or connective tissue disease studies. In order to properly diagnose a patient with AV block, a electrocardiographic recording must be completed (ECG). Based on the P waves and QRS complexes that can be evaluated from these readings, that relationship will be the standardized test if an AV block is present or not. In order to identify this block based on the readings the following must occur: multiple ECG recordings, 24-hour Holter monitoring, and implant loop recordings. Other examinations for the detection of an AV block include electrophysiologic testing, echocardiography, and exercise.
Management includes a form of pharmacologic therapy that administers anticholinergic agents and is dependent upon the severity of a blockage. In severe cases or emergencies, atropine administration or isoproterenol infusion would allow for temporary relief if bradycardia is the cause for the blockage, but if His-Purkinje system is the result of the AV block then pharmacologic therapy is not recommended.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfigueroa12 ( talk • contribs) 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The data added in this article was as told by my teacher during the class. There is no copyright issue regarding it. Please see through it once more and revert the change made by you... Uditkanojia ( talk) 02:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for my edit for gut associated lymphoid tissues. for immunoglobulin g, the point is even if it may not come from a reliable source(i.e., TEACHER, in this case as u say), the information was correct. also, rhat was not a patented material. The information given was just to facilitate the students to learn more from a small text. please on your permission i would like ti add that matter again...
Uditkanojia (
talk) 05:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
O.K. BiologicalMe, thanks you. It is nice to see you. Warm greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.233.173 ( talk) 17:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Creation–evolution controversy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parody religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burden of proof ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
BiolMe - Thank you for your recent comment. It is a minor edit; it just moved an important fact up in the paragraph, and was only 18 characters long. Tiptopper ( talk)
BiolMe--Yup, this about captures it "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions" Tiptopper ( talk) 20:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I got a message from BiologicalMe regarding my edit to the Kent Hovind Marriages page.
One of my contacts tipped me off to a recent posting there and I was moved to establish a Wikipedia account and response.
I am quite unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works and am not presently inclined to try and figure it out.
He/She did note that Wikipedia is not a debate venue.
I am more than willing to pursue any legitimate interests regarding the subjects I addressed, but BiologicalMe seemed to make it clear that the Wikipedia page is not the place for such an extended discussion and I do not find the place that user friendly in any case (at least not at my present level of expertise).
If you are interested in any of the details, feel free to engage on my website or FaceBook page at the following links:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/kenthovindsworstnightmare/
Or, you might suggest some other venue that might be mutually agreeable.
RLBaty ( talk) 14:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You are not convincing to me that you have a serious interest in presenting information on Hovind's marital history while trying to impugn the legitimacy of my reporting which you seem to admit you have not even reviewed to any significant detail.
Here's a link to one of my posts to my Hovind FaceBook group where I link to numerous articles on the kehvrlb.com website which was referenced in the Wikipedia entry I was responding to, which Wikipedia reference hardly addressed the more serious matters you claim to have an interest in.
Besides the references to my articles on my page, it also references one of Peter J. Reilly's Forbes articles on the matter.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/kenthovindsworstnightmare/permalink/1336162413219551/
I can't make you take serious the readily available evidence of the legitimacy, legality of Kent's common-law marriage to Mary Tocco and the questions surrounding what may have become of it in light of his taking up with Cindi Lincoln (also without evidence of what legal or illegal arrangement they might have regarding that), but I am more than willing to dig into the details if you or one of your people really have a serious problem with the veracity, the credibility of my reporting on such things and want to "set the record straight" as to what we can tell from the public record at this time.
RLBaty ( talk) 15:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You are just another anonymous Internet spook to me, and I don't know why you are concerned with trying to explain Wikipedia standards to me.
If you have something substantive regarding what "we" know or might know about Hovind's relationship with certain women, let me know and we might negotiate how best to advance that discussion.
Otherwise, I have just posted a new article about the matter on my kehvrlb site at:
http://kehvrlb.com/wikipedia-the-hovind-marriages
As I indicated earlier, you can comment there or on my Hovind FaceBook page. Otherwise, I'll wait to see if the Wikipedia entry will have any further "edits" in an effort to try and "set the record straight" regarding Hovind's female relationships in recent years.
RLBaty ( talk) 17:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Re. —— SN 54129 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, but I've heard of neither Welch nor Unformed and Unfilled until you mentioned them. If I run across or gain access to anything that can improve sourcing, I will do so. Cheers, LovelyLillith ( talk) 19:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, BiologicalMe, for keeping a check on List of U.S. states' Poets Laureate and deleting my See also addition. Technically you are right that the link from the first paragraph is the same as that from my See also but the problem is that the link in the list is from Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress which to a non-initiate means very little. Things would be much clearer if it were to be from United States Poet Laureate (which is actually the name of the article). Alternatively, you could include a hat note stating something like For Poets Laureate of the United States, see United States Poet Laureate. This would make it much easier for those (like me) searching for pertinent information.-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, could please check Izuru Kamukura? As I stated elsewhere:
an left-wing anti-Leninist and anti-Stalinist big tent( Social democracy) and
a authoritarian Marxist–Leninist state( Democratic socialism). I hope something can be done about it to verify whether it's the same user because it already reverted and made most of the same mistakes again, notwithstanding the edit summary.-- Davide King ( talk) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Davide King:, I looked over the edits, and found no smoking guns——no idiosyncratic phrases that suggest the same writer. I could draw some parallels, but not enough to be openly suspicious. I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I wold be able to do other than file another sockpuppet report, and so far I'm not very good at that. I'm not familiar enough with the Social democracy article to identify editors based on political opinions. The only reason I caught the socks was that I saw the same patterns of problematic editing on two pages on my watchlist which is a fairly random collection.
I would suggest the following: assume good faith, because if there is no bad behavior, that may be the best indication it is someone else. In that case, the worst thing that happens is that a formerly tendentious editor evades a block and becomes a good collaborative Wikipedian; that would be a win. (I'm not making light of block evasion, but considering the gain of a positive contributor more valuable.) Don't be confrontational because that could be biting a newcomer. As the editor contributes more, the odds of finding telltale signs increase, but I do not plan to pick through edits looking for signs unless there are troublesome behaviors. BiologicalMe ( talk) 15:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
because the consensus of reliable sources is that pseudoscience, by definition, is not equivalent to real science.They think alike and the blocked user made multiple edits at HIV/AIDS denialism and specifically called it pseudoscientific. Now it's also engaging in the same edit war, ignoring my advice to not edit until our discussion was over or a consensus was reached.-- Davide King ( talk) 19:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I got a message from BiologicalMe regarding my edits today on several articles/pages. His message sounds like this: “There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)” Would you provide me with more specifics so I can take appropriate measures to avoid getting in conflict with anyone in there? I am quite unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works and am willing to learn more about it. I really want to help with valid scientific information regarding various subjects I am very familiar with. Looking forward to learning about your verdict. Thank you.
Hi BiologicalMe, I received the following notice from you: The Plain and simple conflict of interest guide policy, again. Please review the conflict of interest of policy, especially Citing yourself, and the spam policy, especially Citation spam. Use Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Fluorite, Terrace ledge kink model, Cubic crystal system, Lattice constant for further discussion. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC).
I would like to get some clarifications about this citing yourself and spam policy. How do you deal with someone who wants to insert data into those Wikipedia pages missing scientific data by citing him/herself for such contribution, without breaching the citing yourself and spam policy? I have numerous crystallographic data that I obtained/verified/worked on over many years that I would like to insert into those pages that are missing such data. How do I insert my data in there without citing myself? To give validation to any data you have to provide references, right? Thanks for the help.
I translated the poem myself, so there should be no issue with rights-- Frigorifico9 ( talk) 05:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Please stop removing the information I try to add in the article Chopsticks. It was in fact Yel D'ohan who wrote that information on English Wikipedia. If you think that information is unreliable, please discuss it with him. 90.226.9.16 ( talk) 20:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It was not I who wrote that information, but that user Yel D'ohan, who probably learnt from his parents that eating with just one hand upon the table is "bad table manners", but I don't agree with that. I don't think it is anything wrong with eating without both hands upon the table, at least not in exceptional cases when eating without holding the bowl, and besides that I think the perception that eating with just one hand on the table is "bad table manners" has been curtailed in modern time. So that is not any wrong or bad table manners, even though Yel D'ohan's parents are claiming that is "wrong and unproper behaviour". Yel D'ohan's as well as many other Chinese parents are just stupid liars. 90.226.9.16 ( talk) 10:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Holy cow! You were right. We usually hear in Kansas that it is just limestone that is the Kansas state rock. But the statute specifically names the Greenhorn, but actually, it is the Fencepost limestone bed of the Greenhorn that is specifically intended. Thanks!
Hah, Hah! The statute places the Greenhorn in the Flint Hills! There is no Greenhorn in the Flint Hills. The Greenhorn is in the Smoky Hills. While the Fencepost limestone is iconic of Kansas, they may have been thinking of the Cottonwood Limestone, which is symbolic of the Flint Hills, and its much more widely used in construction.
IveGoneAway ( talk) 15:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC) IveGoneAway ( talk) 01:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)•
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your work expanding and developing Pseudolaw. Chetsford ( talk) 02:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
Thank you. Yes, I have seen in some articles the template missing, while they were mentioned in the template itslef, so I've addeed them, maybe I was not too careful about looking into the second part of some longer articles ;) noychoH ( talk) 16:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)