User talk:Power2084

Welcome...

Hello, Power2084, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the 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! Mario1987 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Defender (arcade game), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vegetarianism page

The near-total absence of natural body weaponry (claws, fangs, etc.) also supports that argument.

This does sound better - it wasn't me that reverted it the first time, but I think that this will also get reverted. I don't disagree with you, but in order to stay in the article, you'll need to find some reference for this (not just some PETA or Veg site, but someplace considered respectible). For example, humans could be naturally suited to eating worms and grubs which don't require body weaponry. Good luck - I'd consider changing body weaponry to something more like "physical attributes" or something too.Bob98133 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person who reverted that edit. I did so for a few reasons. First, the phrase "natural body weaponry" is not something I've ever encountered, and I'm not entirely sure what it means. It grabs only 26 hits on Google, and all of them are either video games pages, forums or a copy of this article. I see that you've included (claws, fangs, etc) to qualify it, but it is even debatable whether we have claws and fangs or not. We nearly have claws when we don't trim our fingernails, and we have canine teeth, though not nearly as large as some other animals. Should we include our size, our strength, or our ingenuity in our natural body weaponry? Second, if that's cleared up, I'm not sure that it really supports the argument anyway. I can think of several omnivores that have similar or less ability for defense than humans. Some examples are pigs, chipmunks, mice, rats, squirrels and several kinds of birds. I can likewise think of several herbivores that have tremendous ability for defense. There are elephants, rhinoceros, elk, etc. My objections here certainly don't mean that it shouldn't be in the article at all. If you can modify the sentence to be less ambiguous and find a citation for it, I would definitely support its being there. My suggestion is to look around on Google Scholar for some scholarly publications that have similar conclusions. For now I'm going to remove the sentence again. I'm not trying to be rude here, it's just that everything should be referenced if it is not completely and obviously true, and that statement is not obviously true to me. Have a nice day! :) Djk3 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure I'm doing this the right way by editing the talk page...anyway. Canine teeth like those we have are strictly vegetarian teeth, like all those we have in our mouth. Canine teeth have been observed on a variety of strictly-vegetarian dinosaurs. Also, when you talk about "defense", I dont see how it's related to the consumption of food. There is a huge difference between being able to catch a prey and defending oneself against being eaten. Finally, about the teeth: try to sink your teeth into a live cow. It's totally impossible. You can't cut it either with your fingernails, no matter how long they are ! HOWEVER, humans are ideally suited for picking up berries, apples, etc... because of their extremely prehensible (sp ??) hands, which are the most agile tools of nature. Power2084.

Yup, you can respond here. If you put a ":" before your message, it will indent one time, and "::" will indent twice, so the conversation is more readable. Also, to sign your name and the date, type four tildes (~~~~). I'm not going to debate whether or not our physiology indicates that we are naturally herbivores. This isn't the place for that. If it's in a respected publication, it's appropriate here. I'm skeptical that the information you added is actually from the Katarine Milton source, since it's an article in the Evolutionary Anthropology journal, not a book, and the article was cited before you added the information. However, since I don't have it available to check, I won't remove your edit again. Don't think that I'm trying to suppress pro-vegetarian information or anything; it's nothing like that. I'm vegan and would love to persuade everyone else to be too. I only believe that it's most important that everything available to people about vegetarianism be factual and well-supported. Anyway, if it's not from the Milton's article, please remove it. I may edit the sentences to better integrate them into the section, but I won't remove them outright. Best of luck! Djk3 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physiology section in Vegetarianism

"The human physical attributes (near-total lack of claws, fangs, - etc...) also support that theory; for example, the human hand is ideally suited to picking - up berries, fruits, and the like."

Please, please find a citation for this statement and a better way to word it before adding it into the article again. It doesn't matter that it might be true. What matters is that the statement be supported by a respected publication. Look for articles published by respected news outlets (CNN, BBC, etc.) and scholarly journals (you may be able to find some supporting material at Google Scholar). Djk3 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, the wording is correct and the reference #74 is right after the text added; furthermore, humans did not EVOLVE into eating meat, that term is very wrong in this context, many vegetarians could consider this a de-evolution and this is why is corrected it. Power2084 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is poor. I do not believe that the information you have added is contained in Milton's article, particularly because you referred to it as a book in one of your edit summaries, while it is a 10-page article. The citation was present before you added that sentence. I don't have any reason to believe, then, that the information you added is supported by that article. Further, there is no such thing as de-evolution. And, interestingly, the very article that you claim supports what you've added is specifically about evolution and meat-eating. Please do not add this information again without a proper citation. I'm copying this exchange to the talk page to open it up to further discussion. Djk3 (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to nuclear meltdown

07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[1]
13:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[2]
06:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[3]

Your edits will require extensive citations in accordance with the verifiability and fringe theory policies or they will be reverted. It may be helpful to discuss why you think these edits are valid on the talk page. I would also recommend you review the Three-revert rule if you wish to continue adding these entries without any discussion whatsoever. Thanks.--Burzum (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[4]
18:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[5]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Burzum (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[6]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You need to discuss your changes on the talk page or you will be blocked. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by POV pushing. If you violate the 3RR policy again I will report it to the noticeboard. The easy thing to do here is to actually discuss your changes on the talk page and provide references.

For your reference, you have been asked to discuss your edits on the talk page 5 times (two times here and three times in the edit summaries), and you have been informed of the 3RR policy three times. Thanks.--Burzum (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. We have pointed out numerous flaws in your edits. You are attempting to change the subject by pointing at other content which has not previously been questioned. Let's focus on your edits first and reach a consensus about how (or if) they should be presented. Simishag (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[7]

Reported to 3RR noticeboard static link.--Burzum (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]