User talk:01001

3RR violation

You have now reverted Fox News Channel controversies 4 times in the last 24 hours, and have thus violated Wikipedia's "3 revert rule" (WP:3RR). Since it appears you are new to WP, I am warning you, and giving you a chance to self-revert your recent edit. If you don't, I will report this 3RR violation , and you may be blocked from further editing Isarig 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Human height

Ummm, the "OR" you removed was clearly referenced by the American Journal of Epidemiology paper cited. In addition to this material that you objected to as OR, you also deleted other material (also with sources). The contribution you made, which really was OR, was by some coincidence reverted as such by an editor just 9 minutes before your "OR" pretext deletions. I'm sure you were motivated by the best of intentions, but you may want to avoid giving the appearance of making deletions or other edits to make a point. Pete.Hurd 04:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FNC ratings issue

In recent edits, you have continuously added back a note about the ratings of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer into the introductory of the article. The issue with this is that the sources and styles of the surveys included are polling from different pools of individuals.

If you read into the sources of the Erdos & Morgan Opinion Leader survey, the survey defines opinion leaders as "...those individuals whose influence on business, social, political, environmental and educational issues far exceed their numbers in the population. They exercise far-reaching and powerful influences on the opinions of their fellow Americans by framing and defining the issues that will largely determine the future course of the nation..." [1] In the Reuters/BBC poll, the general people polled are not of that same nature. The results obviously differed but that's due to how the people polled are of different groups and of different needs in their news.

Anyhow, it is still sad that only 11% FNC, 4% ABC, 4% NBC, and 3% CBS were the totals. In all reality, the whole section should be taken out due to how the statistics make FNC barely more approved than the other networks, though that is going to be debated on the article itself. Just wanted to make sure you know why I have reverted the edits you have made. Chris 04:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:OR edits to Baldness and Talk:Hair

Please do not add your unsupported opinions to Wikipedia as facts, as you did here, see discussion here. Pete.Hurd 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article. Neil916 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2]: Please consider reading up and then citing credible sources before contributing to WP. Pete.Hurd 05:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the Discussion page?

I'm still in the middle of editing the section of Master Boot Record that you REMOVED from the article. You could have easily added an entry on the discussion page about this... as others already have. I will be changing the article Master Boot Record some time this week. In the meantime, I've reverted it back, so others can see what the discussion is about. Daniel B. Sedory 00:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dem Debate Pix

I fail to understand as to why you are deleting the images that I had uploaded, which were in compliance with the rules on wikipedia, because you perceive it as "slanted" to candidates favoring corporate media; what nonsense. You better provide an explanation for this! UnitedStatesIndia 04:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not OR

I reverted your OR tag on Height and intelligence, there are reliable sources in the form of peer reviewed science to support all assertions. Your attack on researchers does absolutely nothing to contribute to an encyclopedia. If you have reliable sources, then why don't you produce them instead of making POV attacks. Pete.Hurd 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height and Intelligence

This is just a friendly reminder. You may wish to read WP:3RR before further editing Height and intelligence. Cheers, Wily D 01:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it surprising, but most admins are familiar with policy. Cheers, Wily D 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, policies work very well, and where they fail is usually due to lack enforcement rather than any innate failings. A wise man once said "The problem with Wikipedia is that it can only work in practice. In theory, it's a disaster." Cheers, Wily D 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cease personal attacks

This hominem attack on me is in clear violation of the no personal attacks policy. This is hardly the first time you have make such an insult. As a scientist who has cited several of the papers used in the Height and intelligence in my published work I find comments such as the one you made [3] that "Anyone that would write research purporting to advance the notion that increased height brought greater intelligence is clearly suffering from some form of ego and personality disorder" and [4] "What kind of nut would do a study comparing height and intelligence? This article suggests that taller people have serious ego problems because they have conducted such studies." to be personal attacks against me and all other academics conducting empirical research on this and related topics. If you cannot find an intellectual argument to back your position, please desist from substituting insults in their place. Pete.Hurd 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. • Maurog • 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permutation group

Howdy. I moved your comment on inversions and transpositions from the article to the talk page. If the error is mentioned in the article itself, it can confuse readers, who would rightly ask why the article doesn't just say what is correct and omit the errors. Putting it on the talk page allows everybody to discuss the right way to fix the article without ever leaving the article itself in a half-fixed state. Michael Slone (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Baldness, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mvjs (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Baldness. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Baldness, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Baldness, you will be blocked from editing. Bidgee (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to User talk:Bidgee. Gazi moff 01:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]