Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sharavanabhava (talk | contribs) at 08:35, 28 February 2008 (→Help w dilutions: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you leave a comment for me here, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template. If I have left a comment for you on your talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) rather than here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. However, if your talk page policy is different than mine, I may follow your preferred style of conversation. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here.

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Top heading

For some reason, the automatic archiver may not want to archive this section. —Whig (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Bennet

I checked out that article a bit. I've read a lot like it and I have a copy of the green gold book.

I actually started to call Chris to use as a reference but he's super busy and in all honesty, he's kind of a prick if you ask him to do something on the fly from what I've heard. (Understandable) I don't even know for sure that he is aware of the kabbalistic link, but I do believe he would put his name on the fact that tiferet's paths do look like a cananbis leaf if he was made aware. I am taking a bit of flack for not having a Chris Bennet-like name to back up my image's utility. I will probably call him when I get the time.

Feel free to let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. You have irc? Maybe even email -Much better mode of communication for telling me to stfu. =) Much love bro --TaylorOliphant (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, feel free to express stfu'ness on wikipedia. That's why this is such a great resource, constructive criticism. Thanks again / God Bless--TaylorOliphant (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Update 2/13: I wrote a little summary of my wikiexperience for one of the admins. If you get a chance, check it out and tell me if you think I'm addressing the situation properly at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:B#Godislove.png

My first few moves on wikipedia weren't the biggest crowd pleasers, but I think everything has been correctd perfectly. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a learning curve to everything. :) —Whig (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Could you clarify what your post on VU talk page means? Anthon01 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would prefer that the matter be dropped at this point, per my comments on that page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. —Whig (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spicuzza article

Thanks for the comment. What did she talk to you about then? Griot (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer

Sorry, but I didn't get around to answering your question amidst all the inappropriate discussion and cross-commenting going on. That's the problem with disruptive editing. I'll try to get back to your question when I get a chance. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that comments like this are appropriate ? I do not. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that comment was appropriate. You still have not gotten around to answering my question, and I'm not interested in going round in circles again. —Whig (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You've not answered mine either. Should I accuse the same of you then? --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is disruptive. I believe it is time for an RfC. —Whig (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive. I'm asking for people to follow WP:TALK, and instead I get disruption. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing to disagree. If someone cannot follow WP:TALK, disruption results. I'm agreeing that there's disruption. I'm saying it is being caused by multiple editors, including yourself, who are repeatedly violating WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

John Roberts's education

Please provide a citation showing that Chief Justice John Roberts ever attended Sacred Heart. I am reasonably sure that he matriculated to Harvard after high school.

I have tagged it for citation. When you find facts in the encyclopedia you think may be wrong, placing a {{fact}} tag lets other editors know that a citation is necessary. This is preferable to deleting, unless the unverified fact is harmful. —Whig (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sorry about that. I usually don't edit, but from now on, if I see something that's suspect, I'll do that. Take care.

Thanks

I actually have posted on WT:NPOV and RS/N and while the large majority of editors agreed with my understanding of NPOV, the pseudosacience crowd have persisted in pushing their version of NPOV and RS. Filll is always claiming he knows NPOV but I suspect his view is somewhat distorted.Anthon01 (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added this for discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assume bad faith. I think Filll was being sincere. I just laughed when I saw the 98% comment, especially in light of he fact that he was lecturing me on NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had discussions with Filll about NPOV and I find his interpretations quite novel. However, we have had them and do not need to rehash them on WT:NPOV more than needed to allow neutral editors to comment. —Whig (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bénard cells

Until I found your mention of Bénard cells on Talk:Water memory, I never knew that this phenomenon has a name. Thank you. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusations have been made...

Whig, I have asked you directly several times, particularly in the aftermath of your complaining about allegedly "uncivil" behaviour on my part whether you had instituted any action against user DanaUllman for effectively accusing me of lying about whether I was in possession of a journal article that was the subject of discussion. I would be grateful for an answer and you have not placed one on my Talk page whether the question was posed to you.OffTheFence (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How would I institute an action? —Whig (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You're the expert. You did do this but I didn't notice you citing any of DU's actions as part of that, though did say this of me "OffTheFence edits only one article and never provides any verifiable, reliable sources for anything he writes, nor will he agree to follow WP:DR". I don't see any criticisms placed on DU's Talk page equivalent to the ones you have made on mine. I would have thought that accusing another editor of lying was a fairly important breach of civility. Perhaps you think otherwise. OffTheFence (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I never observed DanaUllman to lie. If you'd like to post something yourself, you can do so without my help. —Whig (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I think you have seriously dropped the plot here. It is DU that accused me of lying and which you seem to have no problem with. He said "please do not allege that my quotes above are not "verifiable" just because you personally do not seem to have a copy of the article." I'm not offended, just observing the behaviour pattern. OffTheFence (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the quote you supplied. If you have a complaint, perhaps someone else might be interested. —Whig (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Help w dilutions

Help with this,if you can. Anthon01 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know Filll better than I. What is he talking about? Anthon01 (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to psychoanalyze. —Whig (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought you might understand or have some inkling of his concern. Anthon01 (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he is unwilling to admit error, because then he might be confronted with more errors. —Whig (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you are both correct and you are sure you are correct, why not go ahead on that basis?--Filll (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am simply asking you to acknowledge your misstatement. —Whig (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not allowed to disagree with you since that is uncivil. So you can assume you are correct and act accordingly.--Filll (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to disagree civilly. —Whig (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. --Filll (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, okay. Please stop commenting here, in that case. We have nothing further to discuss. —Whig (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)