Archive 1

You probably know the deal, this is a talk page. Feel free to leave comments about edits or comments of mine that you've seen elsewhere, or for that matter, any comments at all that are germane to pages I've been editing lately.

Normally, I will reply here. If I reply on your talk page, it will generally mean the issue is particularly important to me, or struck a nerve in some way.

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as List of Magic: The Gathering terms, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of that particular article, you might as well blank the whole fucking thing then. PurplePlatypus 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, it does appear to be largely based upon original research and there is the old addage that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Should this be considered for deletion on AFD? Let me know. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-sigh- One person's Modus Ponens is another's Modus Tollens, I guess. PurplePlatypus 00:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Was there a particular edit you wanted to query? I recommend you read my user page which explains the spelling changes I am making, and the consensus established for them. I would urge you not to misuse the term vandalism to describe good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. I shall hold off making any more changes to give you a chance to review this and reply. Best wishes, --Spellmaster 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Actually, forget about it. You can ignore my message (which was mostly to do with the Humourous thing). Sorry. PurplePlatypus 19:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Platypus, you are indeed correct, my bad and keep up the good work. Grumpyyoungman01 05:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What may have been confusing was a certain somewhatt overheated edit summary of mine a few days earlier. The problem in that earlier case really was just that the premise smuggled in the conclusion; I shouldn't even have used the word "valid" in that summary, much less in all caps. PurplePlatypus 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to help me out in a related matter, in the article I'm entitled to my opinion I have linked to the concept of validity, but it may in fact be more appropriate to link to soundness. Could you please have a look at this? Grumpyyoungman01 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either seems odd in that context. Personally I wouls say you simply need reasons, period. Neither soundness nor validity really applies to reasons per se. (At least, if you're talking about the senses in which those terms are used in formal logic, as opposed to everyday speech; in the latter, "valid" seems fine but I would lose the link in that case). PurplePlatypus 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help. Grumpyyoungman01 04:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Platypus,

I think that the idea of a co-premise and an inference objection can still be worked into the article somehow, via an argument map representation of the begging the question fallacy. Here is an example that I am working on/thinking about [1], do you have any suggestions for its improvement so that it would be useful in the article? The Bible example is just in my mind at present, it may be more sensible to choose another example. Grumpyyoungman01 06:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Pink Floyd for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Wes Borg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable; requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. None provided, nor found in Google News.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]