One thing I take pride in, somehow, is that you can convince me that I am wrong. Try talking to me and you may actually succeed, I promise. It might not take much effort at all on your part.
Didn't you remove the "Famous/Notable People" Section on Ambidexterity? I would like to appeal on your action; First, you didn't cite any reference for ambidexterity is not acquired. Second, the people listed there were obvious ambidextrous people. And last, I have cited a line in the article itself opposing your conclusion. Please refer to the talk page for better understanding of my approach.
I am just concerned with the matter because there are just very few names there whom you did not delete, for example, Maria Sharapova. Thank you and God bless!! --Hoverflew0909 (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- That was a long time ago - I am not in a position to devote the time to sourcing. If someone else has the time, they should look the field of Psychology for ambidexterity tests. There is a test for ambidexterity, which basically amounts to measuring how good your coordination is with both hands without having previously performed the action before. You can learn to write with both hands and still not be ambidextrous, and you can be ambidextrous and not be able to write with both hands, for example. The same applies to other actions. Ignignot (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I really hate lists of people with specific mental attributes - they tend to be based on rumors and anecdotes, and don't add anything in particular that someone would want from an encyclopedia. Ignignot (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I, for one, have proven myself as an ambidextrous person and am somehow doubting your reason. If you have the time, will you please provide me your source as to prove your claim? Oh,and by the way, where do you get all these information? I'm sorry to say this, but you are not even a psychologist, yet you speak as if you are proficient about this certain field. Thanks!--Hoverflew0909 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Look at my most recent addition to The talk page - it includes a source. I don't know what you mean about my motivation, I am not bigoted against ambidexterous people if that is what you are implying. I am not a psychologist but I can use google to find articles on how to test for ambidexterity. Ignignot (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Best explanation I have seen. Guettarda 15:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey Ig - read and old comment of yours on Talk:Evolution where you said that Galileo was excommunicated for calling the Pope an idiot. As far as I can tell from Galileo, neither of those is true - he wasn't excommunicated, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, and he didn't call the Pope an idiot. Where'd you hear that? Graft 16:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your username is infinitely excellent.--Isotope23 20:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no reason we can force a user to assume a login identity; it's entirely their choice if they want to edit anonymously, although it's obviously less social to do so. However, 24.253 seems to make mostly non-controversial edits that prompt little discussion, and when they do, s/he seems perfectly willing to give terse defenses of his/her edits... Perhaps the recent move preventing anons from creating articles will force him/her towards a login, but really it's entirely his/her decision. Graft 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Honestly what I really want is for him or her to explain their edits in the blurb and to learn how to use preview. Many of the edits made are taken back at a later time (about 5 minutes later), and it ends up filling the edit history of a page with tons of minor edits that add up to a major change. If 24.253 was willing to use preview and the edit summary blurb, he or she would be a much better editor. --Ignignot 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Why have you written that my edits are mediocre ("very prolific and mediocre editor")? --184.108.40.206
- Because you never use the preview button or give a summary of your edits. This results in too many edits as you switch things back and forth. Also, since there is no summary (and since you are an anonymous ip) we have no choice but to examine your edits every time you make them. Start using the preview button and edit summary, and you'll be a much better editor. --Ignignot 14:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't foget to bold the article name at the beginning of the introduction. Also, the heading is External links and not External Links. Finally, you can include the name of the pipeline in the external link. I'm not sure what that EBB you are adding means. Enjoy. Vegaswikian 19:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- EBB stands for electronic bullitin board, which contains tells you what the pipeline has been doing, any important news about it, and how to contact them. It is required for all interstate pipelines by FERC. I'll rename it to electronic bullitin board and change my articles to include the correct style.
The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.
- I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. -- Bonaparte talk 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Ignignot: First of all, I want to thank you for voting in the arbitration elections, even if your vote was opposing me. After all, it showed you had interest in my candidacy and you did the responsable thing by voting.
I believe that Wikipedia will stay for free even if it becomes "the website of the 00's". Take Sex and The City, one of the hippiest shows of the 90s early 00s and arguably a show that defined the last decade. It was aired on HBO, and now on Cable television, which is basically, free television nowadays. It never aired on Pay Per View.
Well amigo, I hope we can be wiki-friends. Thanks for your note about my experience, I enjoyed that. God bless you!
Sincerely yours, Antonio Formula 1 Car Martin
You have crossed the line here Scorpionman. This is the kind of stuff that gets you banned for awhile. Are you banning me?!! Did I call anybody names or did I insult anyone? If I didn't, why am I being banned?? Scorpionman 18:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't ban you; I can't ban you, but admins can and several are involved in the evolution discussion. You specifically called someone a religious bigot. That goes directly against the policy of no personal attacks on wikipedia, and since you have done it more than once it is possible that you will be banned for it. I figured I would make it explicit in the hopes that you would change your ways on your own instead of being banned for awhile. If you are banned, it is not because of me. --Ignignot 18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"I always wondered what sound a flyingorca made" - Thank you, Ignignot, for the best laugh I've had in days! I don't know why, it just struck me as very funny. Over on Plastic.com there's an entirely different notion of what sound a FlyingOrca makes, but to be pedantic it's actually based on something someone else said about humpbacked whales... Anyway, cheers! - FlyingOrca 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"Sun" article spoken version?
It's been a month since the spoken article template was placed on the Sun article -- is there a spoken word version? Just checking in. Killdevil 01:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have recorded the whole thing and edited it, but a few small parts need to be redone. I had been hoping to record it before it was featured on the front page, but I must have read the order wrong because it was featured a week before I had expected. After that my efforts fell off a little but it will be finished soon. --Ignignot 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It's been 8 months since the spoken article template was posted. Assume you're done? - Dozla 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
9 months??? Are you still working on this? DPM 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Since there are no news about this, I have removed the spoken article template from Talk:Sun. If you come back and start again with this, please put the template again there. Thank You - John C PI 22:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you've progressed on the Sun article. Do you need any help (maybe theres something I can do). If you don't feel like you can finish it, would you mind if I recorded it? Ara Pelodi 00:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ignignot, I have spent the last two nights re-writing and re-structuring the ADHD article. Please take a minute (or three) and read over it and tell me what you think. Please, post your response on the ADHD talk page. *Kat* 06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think you got sucked into the soapboxing going on, is all. It happens to me too. Ignignot (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I was going to respond to that but figured the less said, the better. Ignignot (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Horizon Pipeline
I have nominated Horizon Pipeline, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horizon Pipeline. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
- Thank you for informing me, I have commented on the AfD page. Ignignot (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)