User talk:Blair P. Houghton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Archives
[edit] No big woop
- Napoleon never ate a Napoleon. Discuss.
[edit] Specialists and stripes
My understanding is that there are no Specialists any more except for E-4, so Specialists don't wear stripes either physically or colloquially. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 173rd Airborne Brigade
Why'd you rename 173rd Airborne Brigade to 173d? Did you not reference the brigades home page to see http://www.173abnbde.setaf.army.mil/. I moved it back. 173d is a communications abbreviated designation that is not used by the press or commonly by the military outside of the field (check the official websites, all list as 173rd). 61,000 google results for -rd, as opposed to 9,000 for -d. 173d would be appropriate if the article was fully abbreviated as "173d Abn Bde" —ExplorerCDT 23:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Heinlein question
I've answered your question at Talk:Pseudonym. BlankVerse ∅ 06:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Harold Shipman
Can you produce an actual citation for your assertion that the count of his victims is 284? Frankly, I can much easier believe the conclusion of a public inquiry which worked for nearly four years at a cost of many millions of pounds to come to its total rather than an unreferenced assertion of "I read it in the news". Regards, Arwel 23:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia news you cite is referring to the 6th and final report of the Shipman Inquiry chaired by Dame Janet Smith, whose report I cited directly - www.the-shipman-inquiry.org.uk/images/sixthreport/chapter/SHIP06_PSUM_1.pdf paragraph 28. Only the Daily Telegraph report says that the count is precisely 284 and they seem to have calculated the figure using their own selection of which deaths to count, the report itself says "about 250" although she only positively identified 218. Yes, there can be no certainty of exactly how many he killed, especially more than 30 years after some of the events, but the Inquiry is in the best position to judge. The first report, in July 2002, www.the-shipman-inquiry.org.uk/fr_page.asp?id=3 (Summary) identified 215 victims when he practiced in Todmorden and Hyde. The final report investigated his earlier period of work at the hospital in Pontefract. Regards, -- Arwel 17:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Use and Abuse
I've further edited the article adoping more of your changes. The information that you left out, that I wanted retained, was that some natural competitive advantage is due to higher levels of endogenous anabolic steroids, I have now worded it a bit more explicitly.
It isn't in the article, but I feel that allowing natural differences in steroid levels may be no more "fair" than steroid supplementation.--Silverback 11:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Weight training
I realise that as a newcomer you may not be entirely familiar with Wikipedia community standards. Can I ask you to have a quick read of these pages, please: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you. GeorgeStepanek\talk 16:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have violated the 3 revert rule. Either get consensus or go away. If you revert again, I will block you. - Taxman 01:52, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
I've blocked you for violation of WP:3RR. Please keep a cool head and discuss things on talk pages. CryptoDerk 02:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Oxygen Consumption, etc.
Blair, I'm not picking winners and losers here. I am no more interested in blocking Waxman than I am you. Maybe your edits are exactly right, maybe not; I'm not even reading the article at this point so I can concentrate on seeing if we can't hash this out. Otherwise we will just having cranky users and 3RR wars. Or else it will end up as an RfC in article disputes so outsiders can look at the article (not always a bad solution) or as a ArbCom, which is tedious and not to be encouraged. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It was I who suggested that the article be locked. Simply have a continuing revert war is of no use to the article or Wikipedia. I recommend you set our your views on article draft page I created, and post an article RfC to get outside opinion. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Eddie Merckx
The reference you put against the claim that he is the best cyclist ever now just goes to a generic search page. With that in mind I have reverted to best cyclist of the 20th Century. Though I would be happy to see the claim stand if you can find a current reference. CustardJack 11:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
