Perhaps this article should be more appropriately titled "aphthous ulcer." I'm proposing that this page should be moved, since "mouth ulcer" is too generic a term for this condition. Andrew73 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you please explain what is meant by your recent addition to the Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine page, where you added:
GM did, however, build a 396 2V, but only in 1969.
There was no 396 version of the W-series, so it must be referring to the 2nd generation BB. This is further confirmed by the 1969 reference, except that the 396 was availiable for a number of years (as already outlined in the article). Lastly, I've never heard an engine referred to as a "396 2V" - I assume the 2V refers to two valves per cylinder... but that is no different than the W-series either, so I'm at a loss as to why that would be important. Thank you. Mrand 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why you got rid of those criticisms from the Thomas Edison page. It doesn't matter if some of the stuff is the same as in another article. Articles are bound to overlap now and again and it doesn't matter if the information is repeated. Why would you bother rewriting a paragraph when there is a paragraph available which says exactly what needs to be said? The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to be a source of information and this purpose isn't averted by reusing information. Also, only one paragraph was the same, so by deleting both new paragraphs, you deleted a paragraph which would be in your eyes valid. You should stop whinging about repetition and deleting useful information. Owen214 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The Rocket stove page which you started is now a bit easier to find. I stumbled upon it by chance using ALT-X, and have added a number of useful cross references. Wiki is very good at collating cross references so long as someone is bothered to put them it.
Tabletop 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
For fixing the typos it looks like I made on the Maarten 't Hart page, quite some time ago. Not sure why it took me so long to realise I should thank you for fixing my stupid errors. I often type faster than I can spell. Thanks! Edward Wakelin 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your edit on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Technical Communicators. I'm curious what your vocation is and/or how you would define "technical communicator." I would love to have a full-time job editing sites like Wikipedia; do you know of any avenues that would make this a possibility for me? I'm watching this page, so you can reply here. -- J. J. 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
HI isn't it best that you list all the entries under List of postal codes in the United Kingdom rather than starting all these mega-sub stubs. Unless you are going to expand them? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. It wasn't until after I had marked the 2nd article that I noticed you had created a whole bunch of them. I'm not an admin, so I don't have the ability to actually delete anything. Do you plan on expanding them? If so, I will gladly remove the two tags I placed. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 21:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vir.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Fritz S. ( Talk) 16:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Uk-devon.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. — Fritz S. ( Talk) 17:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This is posted here because I think User:Heron is the primary contributor to the -logy article. As well, I have put this question on the Talk:-logy page.
Before coming to Wikipedia, I thought I had the correct etymology for -logy, based on my reading of an Analytical Greek Lexicon. It seems generally accepted that Biology, Anthropology, Theology and the like derive from the Greek, λογια (logia). But... does λογια, in turn, truly derive from λεγειν (legein), as the article suggests? My lexicon categorically states that λογια is the accusative plural of λογιον (logion), which means "oracle" or "revelation."
Both λεγειν (legein) and λογιον (logion) derive from λεγω (lego), which is the Greek for "I speak," or "I say," or "I utter" - so whatever the meaning is of the -logy disciplines, it still has very much to do with words. But... if my take is correct, the connection with the word for oracle or revelation intensifies that meaning ever so slightly: instead of "Biology = 'speaking about life forms,'" it would be "Biology='attempting to access the ultimate meaning about life forms,'" (or even "...oracles and revelations about life forms!").
Ancient people were fairly comfortable with what modern philosophers sometimes call "Platonic absolutes," and they thought all knowledge was merely accessing some form of ultimate reality. Hence, those who coined the -logy words might have intentionally meant to say that such disciplines were trying to learn about the ultimate, eternal meanings of the topic of study.
Would you care to comment?
Tony Harwood-Jones 21:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion on talk page about changing definition, you have spent some effort on those articles your input would be appreciated. Jonathan888 (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Heron, what really rises in the anode has just been revealed below your last input to the electrode talk page ;) MichelJullian 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Tweaked anode def and etymology a bit cf history and electrode talk MichelJullian 16:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I did more tweaks there, cf talk page. Regards, MichelJullian 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for copywriting of Floods in Saint Petersburg article! Geevee ( talk| contribs) 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry my writing was a bit long, thanks for helping me with it, I tend to write a lot. I look foward to seeing you. [comment left by User:rocketman116 -- Heron 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC) ]
Perhaps this article should be more appropriately titled "aphthous ulcer." I'm proposing that this page should be moved, since "mouth ulcer" is too generic a term for this condition. Andrew73 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you please explain what is meant by your recent addition to the Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine page, where you added:
GM did, however, build a 396 2V, but only in 1969.
There was no 396 version of the W-series, so it must be referring to the 2nd generation BB. This is further confirmed by the 1969 reference, except that the 396 was availiable for a number of years (as already outlined in the article). Lastly, I've never heard an engine referred to as a "396 2V" - I assume the 2V refers to two valves per cylinder... but that is no different than the W-series either, so I'm at a loss as to why that would be important. Thank you. Mrand 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why you got rid of those criticisms from the Thomas Edison page. It doesn't matter if some of the stuff is the same as in another article. Articles are bound to overlap now and again and it doesn't matter if the information is repeated. Why would you bother rewriting a paragraph when there is a paragraph available which says exactly what needs to be said? The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to be a source of information and this purpose isn't averted by reusing information. Also, only one paragraph was the same, so by deleting both new paragraphs, you deleted a paragraph which would be in your eyes valid. You should stop whinging about repetition and deleting useful information. Owen214 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The Rocket stove page which you started is now a bit easier to find. I stumbled upon it by chance using ALT-X, and have added a number of useful cross references. Wiki is very good at collating cross references so long as someone is bothered to put them it.
Tabletop 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
For fixing the typos it looks like I made on the Maarten 't Hart page, quite some time ago. Not sure why it took me so long to realise I should thank you for fixing my stupid errors. I often type faster than I can spell. Thanks! Edward Wakelin 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your edit on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Technical Communicators. I'm curious what your vocation is and/or how you would define "technical communicator." I would love to have a full-time job editing sites like Wikipedia; do you know of any avenues that would make this a possibility for me? I'm watching this page, so you can reply here. -- J. J. 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
HI isn't it best that you list all the entries under List of postal codes in the United Kingdom rather than starting all these mega-sub stubs. Unless you are going to expand them? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. It wasn't until after I had marked the 2nd article that I noticed you had created a whole bunch of them. I'm not an admin, so I don't have the ability to actually delete anything. Do you plan on expanding them? If so, I will gladly remove the two tags I placed. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 21:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vir.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Fritz S. ( Talk) 16:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Uk-devon.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. — Fritz S. ( Talk) 17:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This is posted here because I think User:Heron is the primary contributor to the -logy article. As well, I have put this question on the Talk:-logy page.
Before coming to Wikipedia, I thought I had the correct etymology for -logy, based on my reading of an Analytical Greek Lexicon. It seems generally accepted that Biology, Anthropology, Theology and the like derive from the Greek, λογια (logia). But... does λογια, in turn, truly derive from λεγειν (legein), as the article suggests? My lexicon categorically states that λογια is the accusative plural of λογιον (logion), which means "oracle" or "revelation."
Both λεγειν (legein) and λογιον (logion) derive from λεγω (lego), which is the Greek for "I speak," or "I say," or "I utter" - so whatever the meaning is of the -logy disciplines, it still has very much to do with words. But... if my take is correct, the connection with the word for oracle or revelation intensifies that meaning ever so slightly: instead of "Biology = 'speaking about life forms,'" it would be "Biology='attempting to access the ultimate meaning about life forms,'" (or even "...oracles and revelations about life forms!").
Ancient people were fairly comfortable with what modern philosophers sometimes call "Platonic absolutes," and they thought all knowledge was merely accessing some form of ultimate reality. Hence, those who coined the -logy words might have intentionally meant to say that such disciplines were trying to learn about the ultimate, eternal meanings of the topic of study.
Would you care to comment?
Tony Harwood-Jones 21:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion on talk page about changing definition, you have spent some effort on those articles your input would be appreciated. Jonathan888 (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Heron, what really rises in the anode has just been revealed below your last input to the electrode talk page ;) MichelJullian 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Tweaked anode def and etymology a bit cf history and electrode talk MichelJullian 16:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I did more tweaks there, cf talk page. Regards, MichelJullian 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for copywriting of Floods in Saint Petersburg article! Geevee ( talk| contribs) 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry my writing was a bit long, thanks for helping me with it, I tend to write a lot. I look foward to seeing you. [comment left by User:rocketman116 -- Heron 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC) ]