![]() | This page 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. |
Welcome!
Hello, JJL/Archive 1, lol and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- ElBenevolente (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for people who might be interested in helping to improve the Erwin Ballarta article. I see that you have done a good deal of work on the Remy Presas and and Remy P. Presas articles, so you may be interested in this article. Even if you don't want to pitch in, you may find the article interesting to read. — ApolloCreed ( comment) ( talk) 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the prod tag from this page on account of the fact that I think this group is notable enough for an article under WP:MUSIC; however, I agree with the other editors that this article does nothing to assert the notability of the group. Since you are the creator of the article, it would be great if you can add something that would make it clear that this group is notable enough to be covered here. Thanks. ScottW 02:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your edits at various math articles. Concerning this addition to mathematics, I have a small remark. On Wikipedia capitals are discouraged, except at the beginning of sentence, or sometimes title. So "Fluid Dynamics" should be "Fluid dynamics" (small "d"). I fixed that. This is a small style note of a thing it is good to be aware of. :) You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear JJL - I noted that you reinserted the footnote (e.g. I restored the DPharm footnote. About half of the students do the whole program in 5 years--18 year olds just out of H.S. JJL 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)).
I deleted the footnote again and would ask that it remain deleted. As a holder of the PharmD degree (as well as a BS in Pharmacy, a MS and in the next month a MBA - 11 years in total), the footnote is materially incorrect and misleading.
The degree is the degree (a professional doctorate in pharmacy inclusive of the title that goes along with it) - it is not "like" other degrees just as a DBA is not like an EdD or perhaps a PhD in physics is not like a PhD in history.
Not unlike medical or dental school, the professional curriculum that leads to the granting of the degree is four years in duration (e.g. the course work that leads to the degree in each of these professions starts in professional year 1, day 1, course 1 and ends on the last day of year 4). In the summers between professional years, pharmacy students serve as interns as one of the requirements to sit for State licensing examinations; thereby, generally making the program a year around effort.
In the case of pharmacy, all Universities offering the degree in the US need to be accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education and all students are required to have completed their prerequisite courses (generally 2 years in duration (calculus, chemistry, biology, physics, English, etc) but many applicants now have undergraduate or graduate degrees) before starting the professional program.
Pharmacy graduates also have the option to pursue post graduate residencies and fellowships.
I think that the ongoing debate within the editing group is missing the forest when trying to equate "time served" across degrees. Each degree is unique within its profession.
I noticed that you reverted the Educational Specialist entry to an older one because it is "more accurate." I unfortunately fail to see your reasoning. Could you explain? Tim 04:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Naval Postgraduate Sschool digital librarian feedback:
Sorry - If you don't indent your contribution by using ":", it can be unclear who's saying what in the discussion. Please see: Help:Talk_page#Formatting. Cheers Nicknz 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ashihara.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that - must remember to drink my coffee first. If anything I should have put it in afd rather than speedy delete and I probably only did that because the way it was categorized. Peter Rehse 04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
And thanks for the backup on the Grandmaster Soke Sensei whatever on Jujutsu. Peter Rehse 02:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
On the INTRODUCTION - Good work!!! I just could not tell where you began & Dbruckner interjects!
More good news. Db conceded. Your version sticks! Now let's continue! I think of the 3 words in the first paragraph of the Intro., Knowledge should come first, before Existence and Conduct. After all, did not the Ancients ask, What is it to Know, before What is it to Be? - or do the Right Thing?
Moving forward, I suggest the three words/concepts be in that order in the opening paragraph.
I've transcribed this observation of mine, posted on the Article, here for your easy reference.
I see you,ve done it! Now why don't we take advantage of our philosophically wonderous Anglo-Saxon tongue - you know what, I'll put this up on the Philos. Talk page. -- Ludvikus 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's MW, Collegiate, 10th ed.:
phil- or philo- combining form [ME, fr. OF, fr. L, fr. Gk, fr. philos dear, friendly] : loving : having an affinity for <philoprogenitive> (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
-sophy noun combining form [ME -sophie, fr. OF, fr. L -sophia, fr. Gk, :fr. sophia wisdom, fr. sophos] : knowledge : wisdom : science <anthroposophy> (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
--- I believe you neglected to sign your comments on the Philosophy page. Please go back and do so. I can infer that it's you by its content - with which I agree. But it is not clearly distinguishable from that Dbrucker person - I just can't or won't get his/her name right!
Exactly!!! -- Ludvikus 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It's no accident that Spike Lee is a successful film maker.
Dear JJL, Some of us have a life - beside's pursuing philosophy. And even the Wife of Socrates, legend tells us, complaint about those activities - did he LOVE philosophy more than her?
PS: Please excuse the atrocious Typing or Spelling errors above - but I cannot devote my time to correcting my spelling. Like
Hans Conrad
Joseph Conrad, English is not my native tongue. I only started speaking and writing it at the age of 10. My home laguage (the one I have always spoken to my parents) is Polish, like Conrad's, whom I admire for his command of it - English, that is. I don't know about him for certain - whether he had to work at it, or re-work many drafts. Anyway, you get my drift.
See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite happy to push the bit about first and second order (the 'continuous with' bit that you and I find opaque) to a section lower down where it can get fair treatment. I'm desperately trying to keep everyone happy here! The logical thing is to have a short, sharp introduction, then take the disagreeable parts further down in the article. I wish people could see this. Dbuckner 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the first article mainly because the Chinese influence sentence breaks up the reasoning for why percussive strikes are not found so often and that is because of the armour - the sentence is badly placed. I say percussive because other types of atemi exist and of course jujutsu should not be capitalized. Other changes were for flow. Peter Rehse 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw someone else removed it also. I agree about the need to make the Chinese influence point - the Description section is probably the best place. Peter Rehse 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't bleat to me about "getting a better reference." You wrote a paragraph that says, "The JD IS NOT a terinal doctorate." and in the next senetnce, "The JD is a terminal doctorate." As it currently stands, the paragraph makes perfectly clear (to the point of the ridiculous, by inserting longwinded bullshit about an internal faculty dispute at one university) that the JD is considered by some to be, and others not to be, and that it depoends on the university and the situation.
I am not a JD - I have no axes to grind here. I, too, think it was a misnomer to go from the LLB to the JD. However, the finest universities in the country, which have the finest law schools in the country, have large faculties where almost every professor has only a JD, or the occasional LL.M., just as almost every clinical professor in every medical school has only the MD. If Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, and U Michigan are content with the JD as a terminal degree, and the ABA is too, then the article, which makes not of objections, is fine as it stands. HarvardOxon 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
And btw, most psychologists have, and most schools of psychology grant, the Ph.D. in psychology to clinicians. The Psy.D. is in fact a relative rarity. HarvardOxon 03:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to go quibbling over lingo, but I'm not certain about this "stronger" vs. "weaker" business......one is built around research, while the other is built around "practice". Buddpaul 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Cite a single American law school that awards earned JSD degrees to students who have not earned the JD, or its foreign equivalent. E.G.: Harvard University Law School:"To be considered for the LL.M. Program, an applicant must have a J.D. (Juris Doctor) from an accredited U.S. law school or a first law degree (J.D., LL.B. or the equivalent) from a foreign law school. Harvard Law School is rarely able to accept into its LL.M. Program anyone who already holds or is pursuing an LL.M. or equivalent degree from another law school in the United States." and furtherHarvard Law School admits approximately 12 to 15 applicants to S.J.D. candidacy each year. Students who have not received an LL.M. degree from Harvard or another leading U.S. law school are virtually never admitted to S.J.D. candidacy. Students who have received an LL.M. degree from another leading U.S. law school are only rarely admitted directly to S.J.D. candidacy. Applicants interested in the S.J.D. program ordinarily must first apply to and successfully complete the Harvard Law School LL.M. program. Successful completion of the Harvard Law School LL.M. program does not, however, guarantee admission into the S.J.D. program -- you may confer with other accredited JSD or SJD programs at other equally prestigious law schools. HarvardOxon
Check any major American medical school and take a look at professors of ethics. You will find JDs. For instance, Henry T. Greely, J.D., Co-Director of Stanford University law school's program in genomics; George J. Annas, J.D., the Utley Professor and Chair of the Health Law Department at Boston University School of Public Health, as well as Professor at Boston University Medical School; Jessica W. Berg, J.D., Assistant Professor of Law and Bioethics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Porfessor Margaret L. Dale, JD, Dean for Faculty and Research Integrity, Harvard Medical School; etc. HarvardOxon
Just to keep with the theme, as it is a leading institution, and as any research by anyone who claims to know law schools will find it a comparable situation to any other reputable law school, of the 204 members of the Harvard Law School faculty, eight have earned the SJD/JSD (and therefore LLM) and four have earned only the LL.M. (all of the above have JDs, as previously stated). Thats 12 of 204, or about 6 percent, on one of the most prestigious, most highly qualified faculties in the US. Compare that to the percentage of members of the faculty of Ivy League departments in other disciplines who DON'T hold a Ph.D., and you will find the numbers pretty much reversed. Hence, the SJD is quite truly very rare. HarvardOxon
No, I'm not a "troll," I want things correct. Read bthe whole damn page, please, before you give me a line of crap. The JSM and the LLM are the same degree,m for god's sake, just expressed using two different Latin phrases, Legum magister vs. Juris Scientiae Magister. As for Columbia, read the whole set of pages: the LL.M> is earned either on its own, or in cursu toward the SJD, just as one can either earn an MA independently or the MA on the way to the PhD : many PhD programs don't say you "need an MA to apply" because you start the program after the bachelor's and get the MA along the way. What I am fed up with on Wiki is not MY need to be right, but the constant re-editing of artticles by people to reduce the factual information in them, making them wrong. If you don't know what the hell you;re talking about, you should keep your mits off an article, and the crap thrown about by 76 and others like him have simply been incorrect, wrong, unfactual. The OR business is also bull, thats not what wiki means by OR. Finally, 5 percent is s statistically significant difference, it is not statistically beyond "rare" when applied in a population: the term 'significant' is being used in two completely different sense. If 95 percent of English profs have a PhD, and only 5 perecnt have an Oxbridge LittD, then the LittD is in fact rare, yeah. HarvardOxon 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW : Stanford: "JSD candidates are selected from among the applicants who have successfully completed the SPILS program." Spils is their JSM, aka LL.M., program. Sorry you were forced to do my "dirty work," but at leats do it right and get the facts correct, iof you are going to be calling me a troll, and ignoring my own graduate degrees to declare me "some harvard undergrad trolling for fun." HarvardOxon 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I give up, you win. You're the victor and you've accomplished a goal. My account is now abandonned, since it cannot be cancelled. You, 76 (who may well be the same person) you've got what you wanted: a page you own, that is incorrect and misleading, but says what you wish were true but not what in fact is. You've obviously reviewed all my edits on wikipedia and concluded I have not been of benefit to the community nor have I actually added to the usefulness of Wikipedia as a source of information. This is aparrently the consensus. If a person's contributions are unwelcome, and are viewed as "trollish", he should leave Wikipedia. I'll bow to your consensus. HarvardOxon 02:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The group qualified to reach a consensus is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics so I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Computational mathematics. Jmath666 06:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Can we agree not to try to settle on any one meaning but to report what different groups take the term to mean. Jmath666 02:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I misunderstood. At least I got those suggestions for DAB, which, after reflection, seemed to be the right thing and I think merges contributions from you as well as from others who responded. Anyway, my editing there is done, and I will move my attention elsewhere. Jmath666 03:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I was hard pressed to take in good faith "I suggest redirecting it [computational mathematics] there [to computational science] and editing that article to mention that, indeed, computational science as a named academic program often has an emphasis on the applications to science." I have indeed interpreted that as an intention not to mention computational mathematics in the computational science article at all and so a claim that comp. math "does not exist". Assuming good faith, I could have asked for clarification. But it appeared to me from your curt edit summaries and the history there was not much point to that. OK, assuming good faith, it was a misunderstanding. Jmath666 05:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I should have asked you to nominate the article formally for AFD (I just learned about that process) instead that would keep it cool. Would you like me to put one line on the wikiproject talk to close the matter that I am sorry I misunderstood your intent and there is consensus now, or we just let it pass. BTW to resist the temptation of WP:OWN it's off my watchlist. Jmath666 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph you had was similar to what EBuckner had with a variation of a sentence or two. At first I thought it was yours he didn't like, but then I realized it was a reviwion where "reason" was entirely removed from the paragraph. Then I realized you had already reverted it after I made the change. I,m with you on the reason and logic part. My change is just another version of his and yours. Richiar 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Philip J Davis.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have made quite clear evidence in the case of UK Ph.D. programme as well as the Ed.D programme in education. I think you should better check it out before deleting.
If you are in doubt, why not contacting the schools directly and ask for immediate answers? The number is provided on their official website, do you want it? You are asking the questions on UK situations, not US, don't you think it is better to understand it and get familiar before making judgements? You give me an impression that you are running this page (or more), I wonder if you are employed by Wikipedia. Are you an American?
My "assertions" here are based on the fact in the U.K.(better specified as England) situation.
The Ph.D programme in UK, is somehow different than the Ed.D programme. However, to conclude that it is two different types of degree, I can also provide some schools which adopt the Ed.D instead of Ph.D. On ther other hand, Ed.D can be argued as a professional degree (which it actually is), under the UK legislations, there are NO one piece of evidence claiming the Ed.D programme is as same as the Ph.D programme. Although general requirments of completing a Ph.D is written down on the education chapter on the legislations. However, schools are likely to have their own requirement to fulfiling these requirements.
For full-time study, it will be written down as 3-4 years. The fact is, students are required to complete the programme in 3 years, and hand in their thesis at the first term of the fourth year. Of course, finishing within 3 years limit is ideal, but not many of them can. That extra term would be classified as the same year because it is by law under the university regulations. For example, in the case of Cambridge, they would require the full time Ph.D. to be completed in 9 terms, which 3 terms equal to one year. This kind of strict regulations is in order to help the university of charge extra fees from the student as they will go beyond the 3 years limit as well as helping them from calculating the students and teachers ratio for the education department. On the other hand, if it is written down a clear 4-year full time Ph.D, student are likely to pay the full fees for the 4 years time even though they finish their thesis in 3 years. Also, it may also be the requirment of the university such as Cambridge or Oxford, a requirement to force (persuade) the students to stay for longer in the university. That is their tradition.
Part time PhD is more ambigious, it cannot be subdivided into 1 full time year equals 2 part time years. Different schools have different requirements, again, no formal regulations. E.g. Cambridge would expect students to study 15 terms in part time, while in London, it is possible to finish in 4 years.
The word count situation is written down on the legislation that a PhD degree in UK needs to fulfil a maximum of 80000 words in order to complete the degree and being recognised by the UK government. Of course, the Oxford situation is an exception. The would not be bad to have an assumption to realise the fact that eight 5000 words essays can be equal to the length of an 40000 words project. Under the legislations of a UK Ph.D, it only written down that students need to filfil the requirement set by the university in assessments such as courseworks, essays, project, tests and examinations. It will depends on the university to justify this problem. Cambridge would required six 6000 words essays plus exams and thesis to complete their degree where in London, six essays with different range of words limits plus no exam and thesis to finished the PhD. In Oxford, three 5000 words essays plus exams and thesis. So what? The word count is not the most important, its purely done by the university decision. However, within these three years, since the strong interference of ESRC, the PhD programme has slightly reach a similar structure within UK universities. Six core courses are required with assessment on either essays or exams or none, with or without exams, plus a maximum of 80000 words thesis.
Ed.D and Ph.D, both are regarded at doctorate level in UK. Ed.D is a professional degree while the Ph.D is a research one. It is an important fact to know that the Ed.D in UK is a taught degree, at least in London, not in Bristol. To regard Ed.D is lower than the Ph.D is mainly based on the judgement of the length of thesis, length of study, and the generalisability of this degree, isn't it? I personally do not think a professional degree is lower than the Ph.D, the reason is in UK, the chance of getting professional degree is based on those who have got Ph.D. In other words, after gaining PhD, a person can applied for D.Sc, D.Litt, D.Mus etc., and not the other way round. But for example, Bristol would prefer using Ed.D instead of Ph.D in representing their highest degree in education, the rules will then be changed.
(Also on article page)
Hello! Do you think you could help me. You undid my addition to the philosophy page and I wondered where would be more appropriate to introduce the Philosophy of Travel?
Thank you PSBennett 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
South Pacific, Africa, Asia and South America (and the countries within) could really do with links to my site (to add to the travel perspective).I cannot add the data to here as the licences are not compatible. There seems to be a rather unusual bias towards wikitravel which is nothing to do with Wikimedia and is owned by a large corporation that in the end will have act in the wishes of its shareholders...Do you know how this can be changed? PSBennett
Don't take this the wrong way, but what's the difference between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity 2nd nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Noble Prize in Peace winners by longevity. They're essentially the same, but you voted differently on both. I'm just curious as to your logic behind it is, so I can possibly rethink the noms. -- Whs itc hy 18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Ashihara2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You wrote this in the Murloc deletion discussion.
Keep regrettably, the Pokemon precedent applies.
Is the Pokemon precedent thing what I wrote? Just curious. RuneWiki 777 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What notable events? She is aq local councillor!-- Vintagekits 13:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering what needs to be done with the Philosophy artcle to work on it further. Do you have any ideas on that? Richiar 14:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe (I am horrified) you had the nerve to start the article punctual plugs without doing any real research whatsoever.
You didn't even spell the term correctly. The correct spelling is "punctal", and article name should be punctal plug, and not anything else. I urge you to have the article you started completely deleted, and maybe move its content punctal plug.
Secondly, there is already well sourced content about the topic in the Keratoconjunctivitis sicca article, but it seems that you didn't bother to look. Much of this content can be moved into punctal plug, although this will take a bit of work in order to properly duplicate the named references.
Let's not actually make Wikipedia a public lavatory like Robert McHenry thinks it is [11].
-- Amit 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If this section expands sufficiently, perhaps most of the info here could be moved into its own "Punctal plug" article.
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Fred King, by
Dipics (
talk ·
contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Fred King seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Fred King, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate
Fred King itself. Feel free to leave a message on the
bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --
Android Mouse Bot 2
03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu, by
Kim Dent-Brown (
talk ·
contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see
Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate
Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu itself. Feel free to leave a message on the
bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --
Android Mouse Bot 2
11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Logicus to JJL: I would be grateful if you would very promptly restore the two references to Lakatos books – namely his Proofs and Refutations and Volume 2 of his Philosophical Papers - I added to the 'Philosophy of Mathematics' article’s References, but which you have deleted. The answer to your question to justify this deletion ‘Where are they used as a reference here ?’ is that they are references for the article’s discussion of Lakatos’s ‘Quasi-Empiricism’. Note that although the books are not explicitly referred to by name, this is certainly not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia References for some topic. And this article’s References include many authors who are not even referred to in the text e.g. Mount and Smullyan. So please kindly restore this completely out of order deletion of the two Lakatos references. -- Logicus 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you participated in this discussion on whether the article should be removed. Now we are discussing whether it should be moved. The discussion is mostly me and one other editor, and I think we are hitting deadlock time and again. I am not asking you to informally mediate, but another opion would be nice.
I would respectfully ask that you do not make personal attacks as you did here. Making such a conclusion assumes bad faith and is a comment on me, not on my opinion. Please note that policy and guidelines make it clear that one should discuss the matter at hand, not the editors in the discussion. Consensus is not formed by discrediting me or my personality, but by resolving content/style/policy disputes, in accordance with policies, to the satisfaction of the involved parties. Thank you. -- Cheeser1 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Surely three members are enough to be a political family. Noteabiliy of the members is another area which can be and should be debated, but if you don't mind, please alter your comment. If the Bush family only consisted of the three most well known, would we be deleting them as they "didn't have enough family"? Timeshift 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've added a number of sources since you last commented on "Who Invented Surfing" I'd appreciate your looking at the new documents especially #4. Also, Henning has written a lot about surfing including one book about Polynesia...his reseach indicates Peru as the origin and is generally accepted in the most of "Knowledgable" surfing community. The authors and their credentials of Document 4 are a sign of this acceptance. Surfmac2004 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I invite you to reconsider your Afd vote in light of the further information I have supplied and the changes I have made to the article. Noel S McFerran 21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue of karate's affect on TKD has been beaten to death in both the TKD and karate article. Please review past discussions on this and propose edit changes in the talk page. Many editors on both sides of the issue have discussed this and difficult resolutions have been reached. I'm open to further discussion but please propose and participate in the talk page before making edits and reverting as other editors have done. Thanks. melonbarmonster 02:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please check out WP:Con and WP:RW. Let's keep the dispute in the talk page and leave the article at its last state of consensus.-- melonbarmonster ( talk) 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
JJL,
I am not sure why you removed the references I listed. Please help me understand your rationale. Mine was to illustrate that not everyone who studies K-J is related to, or even believes the same things as Dillman. There are a lot of folks out there who believe you can control energy, and a lot that don't. I listed Kyushospace specifically because the site has people in both camps ...if you read some of the postings there, you'll find that there are people from all different arts, and of vastly different belief systems. My intent was not to advertise for them, but to provide information that points out that not everyone is in Dillman's camp.
Scanegi ( talk) 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair put. Let me rework it including some other practitioners (I think it's Higganbotham, by the way). I get your point on the forum ... I do think it could be mentioned in line simply in the context of reinforcing both the prevalence of KJ practitioners in the martial arts, as well as supporting the point that not every adherent of KJ believes the Dillman teachings. Thanks for the reply. Scanegi ( talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that your notability debate is flawed. Shingitai Jujitsu was founded by John Saylor. Please note his biography per his website,"John Saylor is a former 3-time National Judo Champion, 2-time Pan American Medalist, and coach of the U.S. National Judo Training Squad at the Olympic Training Center for 7 years. In 1987 Saylor was voted Coach Of The Year by the United States Judo Association. Today he coaches submission wrestling, jujitsu, self-defense, and mixed martial arts fighters at his “Barn Of Truth Dojo” in Perrysville, Ohio."
It's philosophy is best described in the University of Tennessee website about Shingitai Jujitsu: http://web.utk.edu/~utmaclub/juji/history.php. A sampling of additional clubs that teach Shingitai Jujitsu philosophy are:
http://johnsaylor-sja.com/ http://www.welcomematjudoclub.com/ http://asianma.com/jujitsu.html http://www.midohiomatclub.com/ http://www.lawrencegrapplingclub.com/ http://selfdefensecenter.com/umac/index.html http://www.thefightfarm.com/ http://www.westshorejujitsu.com/ http://www.kc.net/~jujit/index.htm http://combatjiujitsu.tripod.com/index.html
I request the page be reinstated. The consensus was based on incomplete information. Ooda 0402 (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)ooda_0402
Hi. I have two questions. Why have you cancelled the four different spelling of his name? It is enough to click on the link at the bottom of the stub to see the article (which is the main source of the wiki-stub) with the spelling Lhuilier. It is enough to use a search engine to find such a site with the spelling Lhuillier. And the second one: have you bolded the name by one l ? In efect there's difference between the article's title and its beginnig... IMHO it doesn't look very good Interpunk1 ( talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, JLL.
I am concerned about the veracity of this article (stub) you just created. I have never before heard of this "Basque martial art" and, when someone mentioned it elsewhere (in the Basque sports article, I think) everybody (Basque editors mostly) was puzzled, and nobody had ever heard of it.
The references are not enough to justify the article: i.e. there's no reference to the name "Zipota" or the Basque background of this art. The name is actually in French "dance de savate" and there's nothing that would seem to back your claims.
I strongly suggest you to look for a better source or I fear that your creation may be put for deletion. -- Sugaar ( talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've prodded it for deletion.-- Nydas (Talk) 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added an opinion of "rename" in the discussion which appears not to have been considered in the debate. I encourage you to review my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) and determine if you need to reconsider your !vote. Regards. -- Whpq 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon for the tags, but HUH?! Please explain it as if to a layman. I have a doctorate degree, and I can't grasp your stub. Bearian ( talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
Welcome!
Hello, JJL/Archive 1, lol and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- ElBenevolente (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for people who might be interested in helping to improve the Erwin Ballarta article. I see that you have done a good deal of work on the Remy Presas and and Remy P. Presas articles, so you may be interested in this article. Even if you don't want to pitch in, you may find the article interesting to read. — ApolloCreed ( comment) ( talk) 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the prod tag from this page on account of the fact that I think this group is notable enough for an article under WP:MUSIC; however, I agree with the other editors that this article does nothing to assert the notability of the group. Since you are the creator of the article, it would be great if you can add something that would make it clear that this group is notable enough to be covered here. Thanks. ScottW 02:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your edits at various math articles. Concerning this addition to mathematics, I have a small remark. On Wikipedia capitals are discouraged, except at the beginning of sentence, or sometimes title. So "Fluid Dynamics" should be "Fluid dynamics" (small "d"). I fixed that. This is a small style note of a thing it is good to be aware of. :) You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear JJL - I noted that you reinserted the footnote (e.g. I restored the DPharm footnote. About half of the students do the whole program in 5 years--18 year olds just out of H.S. JJL 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)).
I deleted the footnote again and would ask that it remain deleted. As a holder of the PharmD degree (as well as a BS in Pharmacy, a MS and in the next month a MBA - 11 years in total), the footnote is materially incorrect and misleading.
The degree is the degree (a professional doctorate in pharmacy inclusive of the title that goes along with it) - it is not "like" other degrees just as a DBA is not like an EdD or perhaps a PhD in physics is not like a PhD in history.
Not unlike medical or dental school, the professional curriculum that leads to the granting of the degree is four years in duration (e.g. the course work that leads to the degree in each of these professions starts in professional year 1, day 1, course 1 and ends on the last day of year 4). In the summers between professional years, pharmacy students serve as interns as one of the requirements to sit for State licensing examinations; thereby, generally making the program a year around effort.
In the case of pharmacy, all Universities offering the degree in the US need to be accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education and all students are required to have completed their prerequisite courses (generally 2 years in duration (calculus, chemistry, biology, physics, English, etc) but many applicants now have undergraduate or graduate degrees) before starting the professional program.
Pharmacy graduates also have the option to pursue post graduate residencies and fellowships.
I think that the ongoing debate within the editing group is missing the forest when trying to equate "time served" across degrees. Each degree is unique within its profession.
I noticed that you reverted the Educational Specialist entry to an older one because it is "more accurate." I unfortunately fail to see your reasoning. Could you explain? Tim 04:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Naval Postgraduate Sschool digital librarian feedback:
Sorry - If you don't indent your contribution by using ":", it can be unclear who's saying what in the discussion. Please see: Help:Talk_page#Formatting. Cheers Nicknz 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ashihara.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that - must remember to drink my coffee first. If anything I should have put it in afd rather than speedy delete and I probably only did that because the way it was categorized. Peter Rehse 04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
And thanks for the backup on the Grandmaster Soke Sensei whatever on Jujutsu. Peter Rehse 02:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
On the INTRODUCTION - Good work!!! I just could not tell where you began & Dbruckner interjects!
More good news. Db conceded. Your version sticks! Now let's continue! I think of the 3 words in the first paragraph of the Intro., Knowledge should come first, before Existence and Conduct. After all, did not the Ancients ask, What is it to Know, before What is it to Be? - or do the Right Thing?
Moving forward, I suggest the three words/concepts be in that order in the opening paragraph.
I've transcribed this observation of mine, posted on the Article, here for your easy reference.
I see you,ve done it! Now why don't we take advantage of our philosophically wonderous Anglo-Saxon tongue - you know what, I'll put this up on the Philos. Talk page. -- Ludvikus 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's MW, Collegiate, 10th ed.:
phil- or philo- combining form [ME, fr. OF, fr. L, fr. Gk, fr. philos dear, friendly] : loving : having an affinity for <philoprogenitive> (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
-sophy noun combining form [ME -sophie, fr. OF, fr. L -sophia, fr. Gk, :fr. sophia wisdom, fr. sophos] : knowledge : wisdom : science <anthroposophy> (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
--- I believe you neglected to sign your comments on the Philosophy page. Please go back and do so. I can infer that it's you by its content - with which I agree. But it is not clearly distinguishable from that Dbrucker person - I just can't or won't get his/her name right!
Exactly!!! -- Ludvikus 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It's no accident that Spike Lee is a successful film maker.
Dear JJL, Some of us have a life - beside's pursuing philosophy. And even the Wife of Socrates, legend tells us, complaint about those activities - did he LOVE philosophy more than her?
PS: Please excuse the atrocious Typing or Spelling errors above - but I cannot devote my time to correcting my spelling. Like
Hans Conrad
Joseph Conrad, English is not my native tongue. I only started speaking and writing it at the age of 10. My home laguage (the one I have always spoken to my parents) is Polish, like Conrad's, whom I admire for his command of it - English, that is. I don't know about him for certain - whether he had to work at it, or re-work many drafts. Anyway, you get my drift.
See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Quite happy to push the bit about first and second order (the 'continuous with' bit that you and I find opaque) to a section lower down where it can get fair treatment. I'm desperately trying to keep everyone happy here! The logical thing is to have a short, sharp introduction, then take the disagreeable parts further down in the article. I wish people could see this. Dbuckner 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the first article mainly because the Chinese influence sentence breaks up the reasoning for why percussive strikes are not found so often and that is because of the armour - the sentence is badly placed. I say percussive because other types of atemi exist and of course jujutsu should not be capitalized. Other changes were for flow. Peter Rehse 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw someone else removed it also. I agree about the need to make the Chinese influence point - the Description section is probably the best place. Peter Rehse 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't bleat to me about "getting a better reference." You wrote a paragraph that says, "The JD IS NOT a terinal doctorate." and in the next senetnce, "The JD is a terminal doctorate." As it currently stands, the paragraph makes perfectly clear (to the point of the ridiculous, by inserting longwinded bullshit about an internal faculty dispute at one university) that the JD is considered by some to be, and others not to be, and that it depoends on the university and the situation.
I am not a JD - I have no axes to grind here. I, too, think it was a misnomer to go from the LLB to the JD. However, the finest universities in the country, which have the finest law schools in the country, have large faculties where almost every professor has only a JD, or the occasional LL.M., just as almost every clinical professor in every medical school has only the MD. If Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, and U Michigan are content with the JD as a terminal degree, and the ABA is too, then the article, which makes not of objections, is fine as it stands. HarvardOxon 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
And btw, most psychologists have, and most schools of psychology grant, the Ph.D. in psychology to clinicians. The Psy.D. is in fact a relative rarity. HarvardOxon 03:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to go quibbling over lingo, but I'm not certain about this "stronger" vs. "weaker" business......one is built around research, while the other is built around "practice". Buddpaul 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Cite a single American law school that awards earned JSD degrees to students who have not earned the JD, or its foreign equivalent. E.G.: Harvard University Law School:"To be considered for the LL.M. Program, an applicant must have a J.D. (Juris Doctor) from an accredited U.S. law school or a first law degree (J.D., LL.B. or the equivalent) from a foreign law school. Harvard Law School is rarely able to accept into its LL.M. Program anyone who already holds or is pursuing an LL.M. or equivalent degree from another law school in the United States." and furtherHarvard Law School admits approximately 12 to 15 applicants to S.J.D. candidacy each year. Students who have not received an LL.M. degree from Harvard or another leading U.S. law school are virtually never admitted to S.J.D. candidacy. Students who have received an LL.M. degree from another leading U.S. law school are only rarely admitted directly to S.J.D. candidacy. Applicants interested in the S.J.D. program ordinarily must first apply to and successfully complete the Harvard Law School LL.M. program. Successful completion of the Harvard Law School LL.M. program does not, however, guarantee admission into the S.J.D. program -- you may confer with other accredited JSD or SJD programs at other equally prestigious law schools. HarvardOxon
Check any major American medical school and take a look at professors of ethics. You will find JDs. For instance, Henry T. Greely, J.D., Co-Director of Stanford University law school's program in genomics; George J. Annas, J.D., the Utley Professor and Chair of the Health Law Department at Boston University School of Public Health, as well as Professor at Boston University Medical School; Jessica W. Berg, J.D., Assistant Professor of Law and Bioethics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Porfessor Margaret L. Dale, JD, Dean for Faculty and Research Integrity, Harvard Medical School; etc. HarvardOxon
Just to keep with the theme, as it is a leading institution, and as any research by anyone who claims to know law schools will find it a comparable situation to any other reputable law school, of the 204 members of the Harvard Law School faculty, eight have earned the SJD/JSD (and therefore LLM) and four have earned only the LL.M. (all of the above have JDs, as previously stated). Thats 12 of 204, or about 6 percent, on one of the most prestigious, most highly qualified faculties in the US. Compare that to the percentage of members of the faculty of Ivy League departments in other disciplines who DON'T hold a Ph.D., and you will find the numbers pretty much reversed. Hence, the SJD is quite truly very rare. HarvardOxon
No, I'm not a "troll," I want things correct. Read bthe whole damn page, please, before you give me a line of crap. The JSM and the LLM are the same degree,m for god's sake, just expressed using two different Latin phrases, Legum magister vs. Juris Scientiae Magister. As for Columbia, read the whole set of pages: the LL.M> is earned either on its own, or in cursu toward the SJD, just as one can either earn an MA independently or the MA on the way to the PhD : many PhD programs don't say you "need an MA to apply" because you start the program after the bachelor's and get the MA along the way. What I am fed up with on Wiki is not MY need to be right, but the constant re-editing of artticles by people to reduce the factual information in them, making them wrong. If you don't know what the hell you;re talking about, you should keep your mits off an article, and the crap thrown about by 76 and others like him have simply been incorrect, wrong, unfactual. The OR business is also bull, thats not what wiki means by OR. Finally, 5 percent is s statistically significant difference, it is not statistically beyond "rare" when applied in a population: the term 'significant' is being used in two completely different sense. If 95 percent of English profs have a PhD, and only 5 perecnt have an Oxbridge LittD, then the LittD is in fact rare, yeah. HarvardOxon 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW : Stanford: "JSD candidates are selected from among the applicants who have successfully completed the SPILS program." Spils is their JSM, aka LL.M., program. Sorry you were forced to do my "dirty work," but at leats do it right and get the facts correct, iof you are going to be calling me a troll, and ignoring my own graduate degrees to declare me "some harvard undergrad trolling for fun." HarvardOxon 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I give up, you win. You're the victor and you've accomplished a goal. My account is now abandonned, since it cannot be cancelled. You, 76 (who may well be the same person) you've got what you wanted: a page you own, that is incorrect and misleading, but says what you wish were true but not what in fact is. You've obviously reviewed all my edits on wikipedia and concluded I have not been of benefit to the community nor have I actually added to the usefulness of Wikipedia as a source of information. This is aparrently the consensus. If a person's contributions are unwelcome, and are viewed as "trollish", he should leave Wikipedia. I'll bow to your consensus. HarvardOxon 02:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The group qualified to reach a consensus is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics so I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Computational mathematics. Jmath666 06:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Can we agree not to try to settle on any one meaning but to report what different groups take the term to mean. Jmath666 02:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I misunderstood. At least I got those suggestions for DAB, which, after reflection, seemed to be the right thing and I think merges contributions from you as well as from others who responded. Anyway, my editing there is done, and I will move my attention elsewhere. Jmath666 03:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I was hard pressed to take in good faith "I suggest redirecting it [computational mathematics] there [to computational science] and editing that article to mention that, indeed, computational science as a named academic program often has an emphasis on the applications to science." I have indeed interpreted that as an intention not to mention computational mathematics in the computational science article at all and so a claim that comp. math "does not exist". Assuming good faith, I could have asked for clarification. But it appeared to me from your curt edit summaries and the history there was not much point to that. OK, assuming good faith, it was a misunderstanding. Jmath666 05:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I should have asked you to nominate the article formally for AFD (I just learned about that process) instead that would keep it cool. Would you like me to put one line on the wikiproject talk to close the matter that I am sorry I misunderstood your intent and there is consensus now, or we just let it pass. BTW to resist the temptation of WP:OWN it's off my watchlist. Jmath666 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph you had was similar to what EBuckner had with a variation of a sentence or two. At first I thought it was yours he didn't like, but then I realized it was a reviwion where "reason" was entirely removed from the paragraph. Then I realized you had already reverted it after I made the change. I,m with you on the reason and logic part. My change is just another version of his and yours. Richiar 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Philip J Davis.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have made quite clear evidence in the case of UK Ph.D. programme as well as the Ed.D programme in education. I think you should better check it out before deleting.
If you are in doubt, why not contacting the schools directly and ask for immediate answers? The number is provided on their official website, do you want it? You are asking the questions on UK situations, not US, don't you think it is better to understand it and get familiar before making judgements? You give me an impression that you are running this page (or more), I wonder if you are employed by Wikipedia. Are you an American?
My "assertions" here are based on the fact in the U.K.(better specified as England) situation.
The Ph.D programme in UK, is somehow different than the Ed.D programme. However, to conclude that it is two different types of degree, I can also provide some schools which adopt the Ed.D instead of Ph.D. On ther other hand, Ed.D can be argued as a professional degree (which it actually is), under the UK legislations, there are NO one piece of evidence claiming the Ed.D programme is as same as the Ph.D programme. Although general requirments of completing a Ph.D is written down on the education chapter on the legislations. However, schools are likely to have their own requirement to fulfiling these requirements.
For full-time study, it will be written down as 3-4 years. The fact is, students are required to complete the programme in 3 years, and hand in their thesis at the first term of the fourth year. Of course, finishing within 3 years limit is ideal, but not many of them can. That extra term would be classified as the same year because it is by law under the university regulations. For example, in the case of Cambridge, they would require the full time Ph.D. to be completed in 9 terms, which 3 terms equal to one year. This kind of strict regulations is in order to help the university of charge extra fees from the student as they will go beyond the 3 years limit as well as helping them from calculating the students and teachers ratio for the education department. On the other hand, if it is written down a clear 4-year full time Ph.D, student are likely to pay the full fees for the 4 years time even though they finish their thesis in 3 years. Also, it may also be the requirment of the university such as Cambridge or Oxford, a requirement to force (persuade) the students to stay for longer in the university. That is their tradition.
Part time PhD is more ambigious, it cannot be subdivided into 1 full time year equals 2 part time years. Different schools have different requirements, again, no formal regulations. E.g. Cambridge would expect students to study 15 terms in part time, while in London, it is possible to finish in 4 years.
The word count situation is written down on the legislation that a PhD degree in UK needs to fulfil a maximum of 80000 words in order to complete the degree and being recognised by the UK government. Of course, the Oxford situation is an exception. The would not be bad to have an assumption to realise the fact that eight 5000 words essays can be equal to the length of an 40000 words project. Under the legislations of a UK Ph.D, it only written down that students need to filfil the requirement set by the university in assessments such as courseworks, essays, project, tests and examinations. It will depends on the university to justify this problem. Cambridge would required six 6000 words essays plus exams and thesis to complete their degree where in London, six essays with different range of words limits plus no exam and thesis to finished the PhD. In Oxford, three 5000 words essays plus exams and thesis. So what? The word count is not the most important, its purely done by the university decision. However, within these three years, since the strong interference of ESRC, the PhD programme has slightly reach a similar structure within UK universities. Six core courses are required with assessment on either essays or exams or none, with or without exams, plus a maximum of 80000 words thesis.
Ed.D and Ph.D, both are regarded at doctorate level in UK. Ed.D is a professional degree while the Ph.D is a research one. It is an important fact to know that the Ed.D in UK is a taught degree, at least in London, not in Bristol. To regard Ed.D is lower than the Ph.D is mainly based on the judgement of the length of thesis, length of study, and the generalisability of this degree, isn't it? I personally do not think a professional degree is lower than the Ph.D, the reason is in UK, the chance of getting professional degree is based on those who have got Ph.D. In other words, after gaining PhD, a person can applied for D.Sc, D.Litt, D.Mus etc., and not the other way round. But for example, Bristol would prefer using Ed.D instead of Ph.D in representing their highest degree in education, the rules will then be changed.
(Also on article page)
Hello! Do you think you could help me. You undid my addition to the philosophy page and I wondered where would be more appropriate to introduce the Philosophy of Travel?
Thank you PSBennett 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
South Pacific, Africa, Asia and South America (and the countries within) could really do with links to my site (to add to the travel perspective).I cannot add the data to here as the licences are not compatible. There seems to be a rather unusual bias towards wikitravel which is nothing to do with Wikimedia and is owned by a large corporation that in the end will have act in the wishes of its shareholders...Do you know how this can be changed? PSBennett
Don't take this the wrong way, but what's the difference between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity 2nd nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Noble Prize in Peace winners by longevity. They're essentially the same, but you voted differently on both. I'm just curious as to your logic behind it is, so I can possibly rethink the noms. -- Whs itc hy 18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Ashihara2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You wrote this in the Murloc deletion discussion.
Keep regrettably, the Pokemon precedent applies.
Is the Pokemon precedent thing what I wrote? Just curious. RuneWiki 777 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What notable events? She is aq local councillor!-- Vintagekits 13:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering what needs to be done with the Philosophy artcle to work on it further. Do you have any ideas on that? Richiar 14:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe (I am horrified) you had the nerve to start the article punctual plugs without doing any real research whatsoever.
You didn't even spell the term correctly. The correct spelling is "punctal", and article name should be punctal plug, and not anything else. I urge you to have the article you started completely deleted, and maybe move its content punctal plug.
Secondly, there is already well sourced content about the topic in the Keratoconjunctivitis sicca article, but it seems that you didn't bother to look. Much of this content can be moved into punctal plug, although this will take a bit of work in order to properly duplicate the named references.
Let's not actually make Wikipedia a public lavatory like Robert McHenry thinks it is [11].
-- Amit 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If this section expands sufficiently, perhaps most of the info here could be moved into its own "Punctal plug" article.
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Fred King, by
Dipics (
talk ·
contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Fred King seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Fred King, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate
Fred King itself. Feel free to leave a message on the
bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --
Android Mouse Bot 2
03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu, by
Kim Dent-Brown (
talk ·
contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see
Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate
Mo Duk Pai Kung Fu itself. Feel free to leave a message on the
bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --
Android Mouse Bot 2
11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Logicus to JJL: I would be grateful if you would very promptly restore the two references to Lakatos books – namely his Proofs and Refutations and Volume 2 of his Philosophical Papers - I added to the 'Philosophy of Mathematics' article’s References, but which you have deleted. The answer to your question to justify this deletion ‘Where are they used as a reference here ?’ is that they are references for the article’s discussion of Lakatos’s ‘Quasi-Empiricism’. Note that although the books are not explicitly referred to by name, this is certainly not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia References for some topic. And this article’s References include many authors who are not even referred to in the text e.g. Mount and Smullyan. So please kindly restore this completely out of order deletion of the two Lakatos references. -- Logicus 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you participated in this discussion on whether the article should be removed. Now we are discussing whether it should be moved. The discussion is mostly me and one other editor, and I think we are hitting deadlock time and again. I am not asking you to informally mediate, but another opion would be nice.
I would respectfully ask that you do not make personal attacks as you did here. Making such a conclusion assumes bad faith and is a comment on me, not on my opinion. Please note that policy and guidelines make it clear that one should discuss the matter at hand, not the editors in the discussion. Consensus is not formed by discrediting me or my personality, but by resolving content/style/policy disputes, in accordance with policies, to the satisfaction of the involved parties. Thank you. -- Cheeser1 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Surely three members are enough to be a political family. Noteabiliy of the members is another area which can be and should be debated, but if you don't mind, please alter your comment. If the Bush family only consisted of the three most well known, would we be deleting them as they "didn't have enough family"? Timeshift 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've added a number of sources since you last commented on "Who Invented Surfing" I'd appreciate your looking at the new documents especially #4. Also, Henning has written a lot about surfing including one book about Polynesia...his reseach indicates Peru as the origin and is generally accepted in the most of "Knowledgable" surfing community. The authors and their credentials of Document 4 are a sign of this acceptance. Surfmac2004 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I invite you to reconsider your Afd vote in light of the further information I have supplied and the changes I have made to the article. Noel S McFerran 21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue of karate's affect on TKD has been beaten to death in both the TKD and karate article. Please review past discussions on this and propose edit changes in the talk page. Many editors on both sides of the issue have discussed this and difficult resolutions have been reached. I'm open to further discussion but please propose and participate in the talk page before making edits and reverting as other editors have done. Thanks. melonbarmonster 02:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please check out WP:Con and WP:RW. Let's keep the dispute in the talk page and leave the article at its last state of consensus.-- melonbarmonster ( talk) 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
JJL,
I am not sure why you removed the references I listed. Please help me understand your rationale. Mine was to illustrate that not everyone who studies K-J is related to, or even believes the same things as Dillman. There are a lot of folks out there who believe you can control energy, and a lot that don't. I listed Kyushospace specifically because the site has people in both camps ...if you read some of the postings there, you'll find that there are people from all different arts, and of vastly different belief systems. My intent was not to advertise for them, but to provide information that points out that not everyone is in Dillman's camp.
Scanegi ( talk) 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair put. Let me rework it including some other practitioners (I think it's Higganbotham, by the way). I get your point on the forum ... I do think it could be mentioned in line simply in the context of reinforcing both the prevalence of KJ practitioners in the martial arts, as well as supporting the point that not every adherent of KJ believes the Dillman teachings. Thanks for the reply. Scanegi ( talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that your notability debate is flawed. Shingitai Jujitsu was founded by John Saylor. Please note his biography per his website,"John Saylor is a former 3-time National Judo Champion, 2-time Pan American Medalist, and coach of the U.S. National Judo Training Squad at the Olympic Training Center for 7 years. In 1987 Saylor was voted Coach Of The Year by the United States Judo Association. Today he coaches submission wrestling, jujitsu, self-defense, and mixed martial arts fighters at his “Barn Of Truth Dojo” in Perrysville, Ohio."
It's philosophy is best described in the University of Tennessee website about Shingitai Jujitsu: http://web.utk.edu/~utmaclub/juji/history.php. A sampling of additional clubs that teach Shingitai Jujitsu philosophy are:
http://johnsaylor-sja.com/ http://www.welcomematjudoclub.com/ http://asianma.com/jujitsu.html http://www.midohiomatclub.com/ http://www.lawrencegrapplingclub.com/ http://selfdefensecenter.com/umac/index.html http://www.thefightfarm.com/ http://www.westshorejujitsu.com/ http://www.kc.net/~jujit/index.htm http://combatjiujitsu.tripod.com/index.html
I request the page be reinstated. The consensus was based on incomplete information. Ooda 0402 (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)ooda_0402
Hi. I have two questions. Why have you cancelled the four different spelling of his name? It is enough to click on the link at the bottom of the stub to see the article (which is the main source of the wiki-stub) with the spelling Lhuilier. It is enough to use a search engine to find such a site with the spelling Lhuillier. And the second one: have you bolded the name by one l ? In efect there's difference between the article's title and its beginnig... IMHO it doesn't look very good Interpunk1 ( talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, JLL.
I am concerned about the veracity of this article (stub) you just created. I have never before heard of this "Basque martial art" and, when someone mentioned it elsewhere (in the Basque sports article, I think) everybody (Basque editors mostly) was puzzled, and nobody had ever heard of it.
The references are not enough to justify the article: i.e. there's no reference to the name "Zipota" or the Basque background of this art. The name is actually in French "dance de savate" and there's nothing that would seem to back your claims.
I strongly suggest you to look for a better source or I fear that your creation may be put for deletion. -- Sugaar ( talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've prodded it for deletion.-- Nydas (Talk) 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added an opinion of "rename" in the discussion which appears not to have been considered in the debate. I encourage you to review my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) and determine if you need to reconsider your !vote. Regards. -- Whpq 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon for the tags, but HUH?! Please explain it as if to a layman. I have a doctorate degree, and I can't grasp your stub. Bearian ( talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |