User talk:Carrionluggage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Ann Coulter oddity; Fano
1) I didn't lock the page. I unlocked it.
2) I reverted your edit because someone asked me to. You'll have to discuss it on the talk page.
3) I am not interested in Mel Gibson or Ann Coulter in any way. As I said, I reverted it on request.
4) That image thing has nothing to do with me, so I don't know why you went off on a rant about that.
5) Don't move your user/talk pages again.
- -- Steel 17:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Parapsychology
Hi,
I think that parapsychology is too controversial a field to depend on dictionary definitions. Also, its status as a hard science has increased a lot recently, which means dictionaries haven't caught up. As with all scientific fields, it does have a lot of dilettantes, but just as you can call biology a science even though a lot of people take unneeded vitamins, you can call parapsychology a science even though a lot of people who study it are witless. Anyway, the Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Martinphi 00:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC) ==
You ask why Tart can't do it all with psi powers. Well, why can't we get to the moon with magnets? There are magnetic rocks on the moon. Why use rockets? Because magnetism is too weak, or doesn't work that way. Very strong some ways, but under other conditions (distance), very weak. Have you read Dean Radin's books? They might explain a little more how weak effects don't always have experiments that work every time. They might also help convince you that there actually are repeatable experiments which work, with the caveat that we are detecting a very weak effect. I think you were right about not having "science" in the definition, because I think other sciences wouldn't be defined that way- they'd just be defined as "the study of." Martinphi 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] times arrow
perhaps I removed it in error, but I was taught that (SIC) means this is how it is to be read, its not a typo sort of thing... like a direct quote where mistakes were made but not by the one quoting it.Jiohdi 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] link
The site seems a bit slow right now, however the site eventually loads for me and is normally much quicker. You may just need to refresh your page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Style tips
Hi. I have a few small notes. It is good if one makes variables italic when doing math formatting, so x or x instead of plain x. Also, There is no need to put underscores in links, so
- [[Telegrapher's equations|telegrapher's equation]]
works just as well as
- [[Telegrapher's_equations|telegrapher's equation]]
These are tiny things, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tight end
Nothing mysterious about it: just vandalism by an anonymous IP address. See the the following diff link: [1]. I have reverted the edit, but you could have done that yourself. That's what Wikipedia is: the encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Anyway, happy editing! —Lowellian (reply) 05:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Parapsychology as taboo
See Parapsychology talk page Martinphi 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seamus Heaney
hi, with regard to the pronunciation, I've always understood it to be SHAY-mus HEE-ny. I have never heard him saying it, but I would be surprised to find it was pronounced any other way. Hope this helps. Rbreen 09:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just saw your question, and replied on the talk page there. I'll just paste what I wrote here:
His name, in the area he was born, would be pronounced something akin to "Shame-us Hee-nee". The natural way for a lot of English and Americans to pronounce his first name, might be "Shay-mus". Go with whatever flows. I can't imagine a situation whereby his surname would be pronounced "Hay-ney" to be honest.
--Setanta 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
.. although see the caveat I'm about to add! --Setanta 02:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Style
Yes, I know it doesn't do much for style. And I wouldn't do it with a less controversial subject. But I'm trying not to fall afoul of [2]. As far as being pro-paranormal, I doubt that has made much of a difference. These are some of the major skeptical objections, and some of the major parapsychological answers. If I didn't present them fairly, they should be edited. And I expect more objections will be contributed. Someone already did one, the last under General Criticism. I thought it was Plato who wrote those dialogues? In Socrates name? Of course I'd do a more readable job if I weren't more concerned with ease of use and POV. Martinphi 06:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was suggesting the variation in usage to avoid repetition, which is a turnoff for readers, whatever it says
in [3]. You could use the stronger terms in cases where the opposition was more vehement. Just a stylistic suggestion - sorry if it did not "click" with you. Have a nice holiday season. Carrionluggage 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, you're right of course, and I'll do it if I think of a way I can get away with it. As far as vehement, I'm not sure I know which arguments are the most important in the skeptical community. They all seemed to have some merit, or I would have ignored them (unless they were very widespread). Happy holidays to you as well (: Martinphi 06:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bushing (electrical)
Hi there, re this edit, you may not have noticed that there is a section at the end of the article dealing with the mechanical interpretation. Perhaps you might like to combine the two sentences into one section. Best regards, — BillC talk 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jim Criner
Hi. The "Boise State Broncos Head Football Coaches" text is not on the Jim Criner page itself and is actually generated from the {{BSBroncosCoach}} template which is transcluded on the Jim Criner page. I tried to fix it, but I am not very familiar with editing colors on templates. Khatru2 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I also noticed that it was the team colors, but I see no reason to change it back. Accessibility is more important than aesthetics. Khatru2 07:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thomas Jefferson Jackson See
I was wondering if you had a link on the bookshelf. Gostkowski 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - "I was there" and was directed to that bookshelf by a math research associate - several others and I had a good laugh. The books have images engravings of the Reverend (William) Whewell with a quote something like "Those having seen the Truth, let them carry a banner for it on high". At least some of the volumes had fanciful diagrams of gravity working by cones boring into the Earth. If you don't like it - axe it out. Who are you? Carrionluggage 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Userbox alignment
Thanks for the message about the poor alignment on my userpage. I left you a message on my talk inviting you to edit and arrange the page if you are knowledgeable about how to do that (I am not). Regards, Unimaginative Username 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just tried setting my own display to 800x600 and got the same effect that you did. At 1024x768 it looks fine, the same as my own 1280x800. It seems it would be very difficult to set up one's page to display the same on many different resolutions and different screen sizes/aspect ratios, no? Any advice you can give on the topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! p.s. Love your username! Unimaginative Username 07:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of your restaurant
You'll have to give me the context about deleting your restaurant. What article formerly featured your restaurant? Nyttend 00:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted the link because it appears to be afoul of WP:EL. Commercial links, even if they're not advertisements, are usually taboo in articles on communities, and this restaurant doesn't appear any different. Nyttend 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Creation science
Excellent clarification on Creation science ;¬) Teapotgeorge (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re Image:Mesoplanets.svg in List of Solar System objects by radius
Hi – I see what you mean about this image and guess color-blindness isn't considered as often as it should be these days. I can't take credit for either the image or article however, but only for some recent tinkering. Going by Image:Mesoplanets.svg, I'd say User:Lasunncty is the person to try contacting first, but, if you're unsuccessful, add another note to the thread on my talkpage and I'll see if I can improve it. Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have changed the text color from red to orange. Let me know if this is acceptable. --Lasunncty (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Prandtl & Ewald
I see you've linked from Prandtl to Ewald - don't you need to add a plausible reverse link, or are you just trying to get the ref. count up :-) Bob Linuxlad (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I presently see nothing in the Prandtl article that needs a reference to Ewald in 'see also', and the only cross-refence appears to be via their common authorship of the book. If there _is_ a strong connection, then I'd expect it to appear in both articles and/or in both 'see also's. Alternatively, if the book is the only connection, we get there by blue-linking the other author in the reference list... Any other route potentially leads to any random article having all the world in the 'see also'...Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
