![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'd like to add my voice to the apparent cacophany of voices calling you down. Please be more considerate and thorough when you revert articles, especially those edited by people who know more than you do. If you'd looked at the talk page for the GR article you would see that I sourced the changes I made, and was met with stony silence and non sequitur by the opponents of these sensible edits to the article. It doesn't matter if people disagree with me if they can't support their claims with reliable sources as I have done. Stop reverting the general relativity article or I will seek to have you banned. SteakNShake 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your kind words on my recent Zappa edits. It was completely by accident that I deleted them. I have restored them now (even though modesty almost forbad me :-) ). Thanks again. Happy New Year!-- HJensen, talk 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, you cite Wikipedia rules, but you violate them yourself. In your deleting an addition made in good faith and that was first given in the Discussion for all to comment on you unilaterally deleted it giving only insults and unsubstantiated general claims. If you have a specific technical issue, then state it and be very specific and detailed. Thanks TwPx ( talk) 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, "the"/"of"/"en" and any other conjunction shouldn't be capitalized. It is grammaticaly wrong and in every reliable source I've found it is written without capital letters ( AMG, for example). By capitalizing all the words you've also broken the link to Willie the Pimp article. -- ~Magnolia Fen ( talk) 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This ( [1]) edit was bang out of order. I am about to remove it from this page. That kind of incivility totally crosses the line. Come on... it's not necessary and all it does it upset people. I strongly suggest you apologise to the other party. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"By the way, I am astonished by the bending over going on here to keep this party on board." Maybe you would not be so surprised if you looked at the quality of his edits? David D. (Talk) 03:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm glad someone else also understands that the 2nd postulate is redundant. Your input at Talk:Special_relativity#Postulates_revisited was dismissed by people who really should have known better. -- Michael C. Price talk 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I had figured that light was not a matter; I would have called it a radiation, but that didn't seem fitting. I think that, somehow, it needs to be noted that "light is the fastest travelling <insert word here> in the known universe." -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zappa_WakaJawaka.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zappa_PeachesEnRegalia.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 02:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The 1961-1962 Gibson Les Paul was a thin bodied solid electric guitar with 2 sharp horns. After 1963 they began to refer to the model as an SG. But when you say 1961 Les Paul... it looks like an SG... but it's officially a 1961 Les Paul. Les Paul didn't like the design and requested his name be removed from it. But Gibson had a stockpile the the Les Paul nameplates that sat between the neck pickup and the fingerboard. So the Les Paul name stuck with it until it was officialy named the SG in 1963. I own a 1961 Les Paul, a 1968 SG and a fairly new SG "61 Reissue". All three look almost identical. But only 2 are "SGs". The ol' girl is a Les Paul. A simlar naming gaff pops up in Gibson related article when editors add the word "Standard" to describe the 1958-1960 sunburst LPs. We've come to know the replicas and reissues by that name. But when referring to an actual model made during those 3 years, the word Standard is incorrect in the naming formatand should not be used. Hope that helps. Frank Marino being added to the Gibson players list along with a ref is long overdue. Thanks for getting him in there. Thye Gibson Player list has a very strict set of rules and a consistent style format which has been ongoing for quite some time. The intent is to get it to "Featured Article" status as has been achieved with the List of Telecaster players. The List of Stratocaster players is also close to 'good article' status with a featured article push in the near future.
Since you are interested in Guitar related articles perhaps you would be interested in joining the WikiProject:Guitarists. We are always looking for editors who are dedicated to improving any/all guitar/guitarist related articles. Fee free to drop by the project page to learn more. And, again, thanks for adding Frank. Cheers and take care! Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
No where near as funny as The Truth, but does it deserve to be deleted? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
... but it says it best.
Thank you for making a report on
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and
all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in
vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately
warned. Please note there is a difference between
vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in
good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you!
لenna
vecia
19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The derivation you deleted is much better than the existent one. I omitted some obvious steps, if you think they are necessary, I can put them in. Or, you can do that on your own DS1000 ( talk) 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You twice reverted my creationism edits. The comments added balance to the article, by noting that there are in fact scientists who dissent from Evolution and also those who believe in Creationism (albeit a minority but regardless). The added references/links simply show that these scientists do exist and show what their views are -- there is no indication that these scientists or views are 'right' or 'wrong', just that they exist. The article was unbalanced is it presents creationism as if there are no scientists who believe in it and no scientists who dissent from evolution (including non-creationists). Why are you reverting the edits? Do I need to proceed with page protection, as the article, as is without my additions, is in fact unbalanced. Hassandoodle ( talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
As per your most recent revert, "Reverted POV-push of creationists-list. There was no consensus on the talk page." No one contested my latest comments on the talk page (yet), which included the added wording. As is, I don't see how the specific wording (added as you reverted) is in any way not neutral, it's simply pointing out the fact that creationists maintain such a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassandoodle ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Originally the statement about parallel component was indeed nonsense. I had omitted the word force as I hadn't read the book properly. Can we now agree that the modified statement is a consequence of the Lorentz factor, and therefore put the statement into the article. The statement should now read: "Acceleration requires a force not only in the direction of the acceleration but a force which also has a component parallel to the existing velocity." Delaszk ( talk) 12:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Good catch! Impressive how much a little word can do! If you like, you may want to add it here as well (and perhaps add a comment). Thanks!-- HJensen, talk 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you following me around and undoing my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.24.106 ( talk • contribs)
Though it was almost a month ago, your patience and thoroughness shined through in your interaction with User:Quartus81 over the use of the word myth at the Creation page and color me impressed. Good work and thanks for your contributions. D-rew ( talk)
DVdm, my very best wishes for the festive season
stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--
VS
talk
11:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Speed of light. Thanks!! -- Steve ( talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'd like to add my voice to the apparent cacophany of voices calling you down. Please be more considerate and thorough when you revert articles, especially those edited by people who know more than you do. If you'd looked at the talk page for the GR article you would see that I sourced the changes I made, and was met with stony silence and non sequitur by the opponents of these sensible edits to the article. It doesn't matter if people disagree with me if they can't support their claims with reliable sources as I have done. Stop reverting the general relativity article or I will seek to have you banned. SteakNShake 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your kind words on my recent Zappa edits. It was completely by accident that I deleted them. I have restored them now (even though modesty almost forbad me :-) ). Thanks again. Happy New Year!-- HJensen, talk 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, you cite Wikipedia rules, but you violate them yourself. In your deleting an addition made in good faith and that was first given in the Discussion for all to comment on you unilaterally deleted it giving only insults and unsubstantiated general claims. If you have a specific technical issue, then state it and be very specific and detailed. Thanks TwPx ( talk) 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, "the"/"of"/"en" and any other conjunction shouldn't be capitalized. It is grammaticaly wrong and in every reliable source I've found it is written without capital letters ( AMG, for example). By capitalizing all the words you've also broken the link to Willie the Pimp article. -- ~Magnolia Fen ( talk) 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This ( [1]) edit was bang out of order. I am about to remove it from this page. That kind of incivility totally crosses the line. Come on... it's not necessary and all it does it upset people. I strongly suggest you apologise to the other party. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"By the way, I am astonished by the bending over going on here to keep this party on board." Maybe you would not be so surprised if you looked at the quality of his edits? David D. (Talk) 03:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm glad someone else also understands that the 2nd postulate is redundant. Your input at Talk:Special_relativity#Postulates_revisited was dismissed by people who really should have known better. -- Michael C. Price talk 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I had figured that light was not a matter; I would have called it a radiation, but that didn't seem fitting. I think that, somehow, it needs to be noted that "light is the fastest travelling <insert word here> in the known universe." -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zappa_WakaJawaka.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zappa_PeachesEnRegalia.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 02:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The 1961-1962 Gibson Les Paul was a thin bodied solid electric guitar with 2 sharp horns. After 1963 they began to refer to the model as an SG. But when you say 1961 Les Paul... it looks like an SG... but it's officially a 1961 Les Paul. Les Paul didn't like the design and requested his name be removed from it. But Gibson had a stockpile the the Les Paul nameplates that sat between the neck pickup and the fingerboard. So the Les Paul name stuck with it until it was officialy named the SG in 1963. I own a 1961 Les Paul, a 1968 SG and a fairly new SG "61 Reissue". All three look almost identical. But only 2 are "SGs". The ol' girl is a Les Paul. A simlar naming gaff pops up in Gibson related article when editors add the word "Standard" to describe the 1958-1960 sunburst LPs. We've come to know the replicas and reissues by that name. But when referring to an actual model made during those 3 years, the word Standard is incorrect in the naming formatand should not be used. Hope that helps. Frank Marino being added to the Gibson players list along with a ref is long overdue. Thanks for getting him in there. Thye Gibson Player list has a very strict set of rules and a consistent style format which has been ongoing for quite some time. The intent is to get it to "Featured Article" status as has been achieved with the List of Telecaster players. The List of Stratocaster players is also close to 'good article' status with a featured article push in the near future.
Since you are interested in Guitar related articles perhaps you would be interested in joining the WikiProject:Guitarists. We are always looking for editors who are dedicated to improving any/all guitar/guitarist related articles. Fee free to drop by the project page to learn more. And, again, thanks for adding Frank. Cheers and take care! Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
No where near as funny as The Truth, but does it deserve to be deleted? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
... but it says it best.
Thank you for making a report on
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and
all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in
vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately
warned. Please note there is a difference between
vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in
good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you!
لenna
vecia
19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The derivation you deleted is much better than the existent one. I omitted some obvious steps, if you think they are necessary, I can put them in. Or, you can do that on your own DS1000 ( talk) 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You twice reverted my creationism edits. The comments added balance to the article, by noting that there are in fact scientists who dissent from Evolution and also those who believe in Creationism (albeit a minority but regardless). The added references/links simply show that these scientists do exist and show what their views are -- there is no indication that these scientists or views are 'right' or 'wrong', just that they exist. The article was unbalanced is it presents creationism as if there are no scientists who believe in it and no scientists who dissent from evolution (including non-creationists). Why are you reverting the edits? Do I need to proceed with page protection, as the article, as is without my additions, is in fact unbalanced. Hassandoodle ( talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
As per your most recent revert, "Reverted POV-push of creationists-list. There was no consensus on the talk page." No one contested my latest comments on the talk page (yet), which included the added wording. As is, I don't see how the specific wording (added as you reverted) is in any way not neutral, it's simply pointing out the fact that creationists maintain such a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassandoodle ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Originally the statement about parallel component was indeed nonsense. I had omitted the word force as I hadn't read the book properly. Can we now agree that the modified statement is a consequence of the Lorentz factor, and therefore put the statement into the article. The statement should now read: "Acceleration requires a force not only in the direction of the acceleration but a force which also has a component parallel to the existing velocity." Delaszk ( talk) 12:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Good catch! Impressive how much a little word can do! If you like, you may want to add it here as well (and perhaps add a comment). Thanks!-- HJensen, talk 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you following me around and undoing my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.24.106 ( talk • contribs)
Though it was almost a month ago, your patience and thoroughness shined through in your interaction with User:Quartus81 over the use of the word myth at the Creation page and color me impressed. Good work and thanks for your contributions. D-rew ( talk)
DVdm, my very best wishes for the festive season
stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--
VS
talk
11:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Speed of light. Thanks!! -- Steve ( talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)