User talk:Myrvin

Hello, Myrvin. You have new messages at Talk:Teleological argument.
Message added 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you keep posting reports around Wikipedia that I am "insulting" everytime I say you are wrong your behavior could be interpreted as verging on WP:Hound. I do appreciate that working together with others on Wikipedia can be frustrating sometimes, but it is the only way to work here. Please accept that sometimes I will say that I disagree with an edit or a proposal or something done on a talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you stop the attacks, I'll stop complaining. I don't mind being told that someone disagrees with me - that's par for the course; but you use disparaging words to do so to me. I've looked at many of your posts on Talk:Intelligent design and you don't seem to say such things to other people. You have even complained that another editor was "combative". Yet you use disparaging language to me frequently. (However, I note that you have called Dave Souza a "creationalist Troll" on his user page.) If you disagree that you have been disparaging me many times and intend to carry on doing so, let us ask a for a Third Opinion. Myrvin (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarcasm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Fowler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Internal consistency of the Bible Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanab, Utah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montezuma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teleological argument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Wolff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teleological argument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monads (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the Earldom of Salisbury in 1605."<ref>http://www.britannia.com/history/r-cecil.html Britannica.com]</ref> His motto was "Sero, sed serio", which can be translated as 'late but in earnest'<ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Karl Popper may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• opposition to communism were elaborated in a 1992 Seville lecture, reprinted in a 2013 book.<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W0jP04qn0uoC&pg=PA126&dq=popper+communism+1992&hl=en&

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Those topics called pseudoscientific in first sentence.

• Phrenology
• Biorhythms
• Crystal healing
• Magnetic therapy
• Melanin theory
• Cryptozoology
• Psychic surgery
• New Chronology (Fomenko)- pseudohistory
• Terence McKenna#Novelty theory and Timewave Zero
• Torsion field (pseudoscience)
• Ancient astronauts
• Sun Language Theory
• Pyramidology
• Indigo children
• Leuchter report
• Atlantis: The Antediluvian World
• Bioresonance therapy
• Energo-Chromo-Kinese
• The Beginning Was the End
• Energy field disturbance
• Pseudophysics
• Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)
• Radium Ore Revigator
• Mental literacy
• Ontogenetic depth

25

Those topics called pseudoscience in lead.

• Body memory 5th
• Iridology 3rd para
• Homeopathy 2nd sentence
• Naturopathy 3rd sentence.
• Radionics 2nd sentence
• Erich von Däniken 3rd sentence
• Extrasensory perception end
• Ghost hunting end
• Palmistry end
• Pseudoarchaeology 2nd sentence.
• Baraminology 3rd sentence
• Dianetics 2nd
• Quantum mysticism 2nd
• Pyramid power end also "alleged" in 1st

14 Other

• Psychokinesis "alleged" 1st

1

Test

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Athenian democracy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• those who were well past 30".<ref>Thorley, J., ''Athenian Democracy'', Routledge, 2005, pp.31-32]</ref>
• : From Athenian Practice to American Worship'', University of California Press, 2004, pp. 44-45.]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Athenian democracy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• obtain as much power as possible.<ref>Thorley, J., ''Athenian Democracy'', Routledge, 2005, p.10.]</ref>
• : From Athenian Practice to American Worship'', University of California Press, 2004, pp. 44-45.]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Athenian democracy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Athenian democracy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tholos and Draco. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article David Hume you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mics 777 -- Mics 777 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The article David Hume you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:David Hume for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mics 777 -- Mics 777 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Myrvin, it appears that Mics777 put your article on hold, and made his or her final edits to Wikipedia later that. At this point, six weeks later, I think we have to conclude that Mics777 is not coming back. It was this editor's first GAN review, and I think it was awfully ambitious under the circumstances.

I did ask at WT:GAN whether anyone would be willing to take over the review, but there has been no response in nearly a week.

My recommendation, which you're free to disagree with, is that you agree to have me put the nomination back in the reviewing pool. Even if it isn't picked up right away, it's likely to be reviewed as part of the GA Cup competition that begins on October 1. I'm sorry this reviewer didn't work out, but I suspect it's for the best given the lack of experience both as a GA reviewer and on Wikipedia in general. Please let me know your thoughts about how you'd like to proceed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: It's a pity that there's no way of getting someone else to agree that the work has been done and to pass it. I did a lot to meet the requirements and now the reviewer Mics 777 seems to have given up - nothing on WP since 7 August. Can we give him/her another month and then put the article back in the pool. Or would that preclude the GA cup event? Myrvin (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

On further investigation, I would strongly urge you to agree to terminate this review immediately. If I hadn't asked you your thoughts earlier, I would do so pre-emptively. Mics 777 was a new reviewer, and I've just read his review requests: some of them were flat wrong. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style (WP:MOS), and he's wrong about always putting punctuation inside quotes (as in this edit he made): Wikipedia uses the logical quotation style, which is to leave punctuation like final periods and commas outside quotes unless the quote is a proper sentence originally, and has the ending punctuation there in the original. There's also one thing I noticed about the article: the lead section has five paragraphs, which is generally considered too many for Wikipedia articles. Per WP:LEADLENGTH—and the lead section is one that must adhere to the manual of style in good articles—articles over 30,000 prose characters (yours is 43,129 at the moment) should have lead sections of three or four paragraphs. (Four is the maximum recommended for any article.)

I realize that you're reluctant to lose the reviewer you have, and I'm sorry yours was selected and then abandoned by a Wikipedian who vanished, but I truly think this will be better put back in the reviewing pool. Until it is, none of the GA Cup reviewers (or any other reviewer) can initiate a review on it; it's effectively reserved for Mics 777. I should point out that "getting someone else to agree that the work has been done and to pass it" was never in the cards: a new reviewer would have to do his or her own thorough review on all the points. It's pretty much inevitable that some new things will be found, but usually they're straightforward fixes that can be done in a reasonable period of time, so I wouldn't worry about the process. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Put it back in the pot please. Myrvin (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. I hope someone picks it up for review soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Athenian democracy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eumenides and Boule. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teleological argument you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Teleological argument you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Teleological argument for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Teleological argument you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teleological argument for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

...At Talk:William Shakespeare. My watchlist refreshed when I was trying to click another link. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Your addition - about the history of understanding of the structure - doesn't belong as the very first line of the structure article, it should be in the history of the work, see talk. - No reference in a lead, please, which is a summary of what comes later with references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you. As I said in the Talk page, the article needs a proper introductory sentence that explains why the article exists. I suggest you read WP:lead. It says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects," and "The lead should establish significance ... and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." It shouldn't start by just pointing to a later part of the article. There is no WP rule that you shouldn't have references in the lead - millions of articles do this. I note that William Waterhouse (bassoonist) and Aloys and Alfons Kontarsky, with which you have had dealings, have references. So do Mozart, Joseph Haydn, and the St John Passion itself. I do think there should be more about what the St John Passion is in the lead. Maybe that could be the first line, or added to my first line. Myrvin (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved to article Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

<ref>Ryan, W., Pitman, W.,Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History, Simon and Schuster, 2000, p.24.</ref>

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hagia Sophia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tympanum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Myrvin. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Myrvin/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abbreviation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '' for ''and'' and ''y'' for ''since'', so that "not much space is wasted".<ref>Gelderen, E. v, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=68EjAwAAQBAJ&dq=abbreviations+history&q=abbreviations+

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hegemony may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Asian Triangle and the Relegation of the US as a Hegemonic Power, the Reorientation of Europe''], Peter Lang, 2009, pp. 9-11.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hegemony may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• way language helped "diminish the traditions" of African Americans in the USA.<ref>Semmes, CE., [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OU2vSHLUZuMC&pg=PA9&dq=hegemony+language&hl=en&

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Hume, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Induction and Causation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that you attempted to edit WP:GAN. However, the bot will revert any edit that is not based on talkpage parameters of {{GA nominee}}. Go to the talk page of the article and make the edits to the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll do it another way. Myrvin (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The article David Hume you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:David Hume for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pgallert -- Pgallert (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Picking up this thread from elsewhere, the fail was ridiculous. No-one responded to your challenge as to which GA criteria were not met. The reviewers seem to be confused between GA and FA reviews. I'd like to see reviewers forced to use some tabular or list-based version of WP:GACR. My review of the principal reviewer's use of WP:GACR wouldn't be very positive!

More generally, the whole process of GA reviewing is very unsatisfactory, with totally inconsistent standards applied to different articles. At the other extreme to you, I've had an article I spent a long time working on passed with so little comment that I doubted that the reviewer had really studied it, which is also disappointing. Now I prefer simply to concentrate on improving articles, and leave reviews to others. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Peter, I sweated blood over the David Hume review, so I've given up on GAs too. I don't think that even a tabular system would help. The whole system is broken. Reviewers have such odd ideas of what the GA criteria mean that any system would be dodged so that their own views would seem to fit. See my comments in Wikipedia talk:What the Good article criteria are not#Reviewers' hobby-horses. And such reviewers hate being questioned. I've had them say that I shouldn't even question why they were asking me to do something, because they are the reviewer, not me. Myrvin (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I just read your clear explanation of the difference between Secondary and tertiary sources in different disciplines. Like you, I have an academic background in mixed fields and have tried without success to explain the meaning of original research to cretins who have never written a two-page paper. Save you breath! — Robert Greer (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add my support to your advice, but I think that at some point those who do understand the issues do need to try to get this policy sorted out. This is one of the idiocies that are driving editors with much needed expertise off Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have undone your reversion at Born again (Christianity). Not only did the previous text go beyond simply stating their belief, but it was also inaccurate. The text claimed that they 'prefer the translation: "should be born from above"'; that claim is not supported by the source. Actually, the other text was from a different translation, that the Watch Tower Society once quoted to indicate an idea that the verse may convey. They do not state that it is their preferred translation, and it isn't the rendering found in their translation of the Bible. The bulk of the second paragaph was essentially a preachy collection of quotes claiming to provide "evidence" for their interpretation, which is not Wikipedia's purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved this to the article Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation inside the quotes is not "invented". It is American style. I prefer British style for the punctuation/quotes issue (which is what you have reverted to in the Hypnosis article and I have no issue with that) but calling American style punctuation "invented" is incorrect and could be viewed as unnecessarily provocative. Marteau (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WP style is laid out in MOS:LQ. It says "A quoted word or fragment should not end with a comma inside the closing quotation mark, except where a longer quotation has been broken up and the comma is part of the full quotation." I did say rule. It's the WP rule that the editor invented, not the style. Sorry if I upset anyone - I did point the editor to the MOS. Myrvin (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I put a note on the editor's Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Myrvin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Noah discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Myrvin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Noah.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

some more --Bejnar (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You might well be right. I'll remove it till I've finished with the virgin birth (not my personal virgin birth, far too late for that). But I really do want to give up Wikipedia - an immense waste of time.PiCo (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Myrvin, please consult dictionary definitions of "acronym": http://www.onelook.com/?w=acronym&ls=a Note that the first, main definition in the most authoritative dictionaries define an acronym to be a word -- an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word. I am well aware that many speakers are unaware of this distinction, and use/misuse the word to refer to any initialism, regardles of whether it is pronounced as a word. If such misusage continues, the dictionaries will eventually change to reflect that new meaning. When that happens, it would be reasonable to change the encyclopedia in accordance. In the meantime, it is misleading to readers to use the word "acronym" in a sense that is not widely accepted as proper usage and does not agree with the main definition of the most authoritative English dictionaries.

Unfortunately, someone seems to have a mission to dilute the meaning of the word. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Please help it be accurate by aligning the use of this term with the prevailing dictionary definition, which is an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word. -- DBooth (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving this to the article Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

please don't simply redo things like that. The article does not belong to you and you need to justify your actions Tetra quark ^(talk) 18:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

edit: it turns out you added the tag in a different location, so I restored it. Being more clear in the summaries can be good Tetra quark ^(talk) 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry TQ, what cn are you talking about? I don't remember "redoing" a tag recently. I did get an edit clash on Big Bang, maybe that was it. And I did accidentally press the Save button before adding a comment. If you check, you will see that I very rarely miss. It would only have been "cn" or "where is this?" or suchlike. I see you are one of those editors who think a wikiink is as good as a citation - it is not. Every assertion needs a citation. You should read WP:SCG. Also, see the discussion on Talk:Uncertainty principle Myrvin (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This should be on the article Talk page - I'll move it. Myrvin (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the unspoken rules of wikipedia is: Don't go adding cn tags everywhere. If I wanted to, I could add cn tags on 90% of the articles I read, but I don't. It looks bad.

Just to let you know, once again I removed one of the cn tags you added after this sentence:

Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the Universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.

As I said before, that does not need a citation. Tetra quark ^(talk) 14:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your views shouldn't be hidden here. I've moved it to the article Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent edits on the above. I was beginning to think it was only my bad breath.

I'll see if I can start an Unended Quest page.

--Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Ddstretch's talk page.

Thanks for this heads up. I have noted the conversation going on but almost forgot I threw a revert in (it was a technical citing/WP:SYNTH thing not really supporting anyone's "side"). I do have a comment/suggestion for the WP:DRN, should I add myself to the participants list or open a "Comments" section? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you can add a section. Myrvin (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lymph node, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axillary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your good faith edits to Socratic problem. I'm sure you have good intent, but the page was just painful to read as it was. Visit the talk page for more on why. Psychotic Spartan 123 07:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to United Kingdom general election, 1992 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ac.uk/fac/sci/statistics/staff/academic-research/firth/exit-poll-explainer/ Exit polling explained]], University of Warwick, Statistics Department.</ref>
• |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am Akhi666. I edited the philosophy page to add a link to solipsism, but you reverted it in good faith and said the concepts which I linked to solipsism were more related to idealism. Thanks for your contribution, but could you clarify the difference if possible? Is it that idealism is more an expression of the lack of anything physical, as such, and the universe is 'fundamentally mental' or 'mentally constructed', whereas solipsism is an expression regarding the certainty that anything beyond our own minds could exist? Thanks in advance if you answer! Akhi666 (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Akhi666. I guess they are related. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. So, only I exist and you and everything / everyone else are only in my mind. This seems a form of idealism, where, reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. It seems to me that the text "If all the contents of awareness are ideas, how can we know that anything exists apart from ideas?" is more like general idealism, rather than solipsism. Myrvin (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. That seems to be the case between idealism and solipsism , the former about a reality while the latter is about certainty. Thank you! Akhi666 (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

In both of these cases, what matters more than either of your ideas or opinions, are what sources say. If well regarded published sources intermingle the discussion of these two concepts, they can appear intermingled here. If all reliable sources make the distinctions made by esteemed Myrvin, they should indeed remain distinct in presentation. My opinion, and since not aimed at article inclusion, no citation given (but the origins in WP:OR and WP:VERIFY are clear). Cheers, and regards, Myrvin. You have greater patience than I. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Text in Talk page

in article

Bold

mono

Template:Xt

Template:tq

…concurrence, and additional comments, here []. Le Prof (User:Leprof_7272). 71.201.62.200 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I re-worded a few sentences under Philosophical beliefs. By the way, the subject of this section, is it meant to be his religious views (i.e. in the sense of religious beliefs) & also beliefs in philosophy? because surely Socrates, being particularly keen on locating truth wouldn't have remained in a position of belief, in the way a Christian might base their belief on faith without recourse to strong evidence. The whole idea of him urging (or otherwise) others to question their beliefs, seems to indicate he would prefer to challenge beliefs (challenge them on the basis of the lack of evidence viz with regards to the I know I know nothing maxim particularly indicating his knowing the failing of reliance on belief alone, instead of examination and proof or sorts via elenchus). Really, I'm thinking at this moment, the idea of Socrates having a belief in respect to philosophy isn't correct, unless it is in reference specifically to his religiousness. Also, I've looked previously, but still I thought to be slightly lazy and just ask yourself for the answer, what does Covertness actually refer to? I know covert in the policing sense, as in a covert operation, but how does the word relate to Socrates? Whalestate (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Socratic paradoxes begins > Many of the beliefs traditionally attributed....

wouldn't it be better if this section were sub-headed to the philosophical beliefs section? Whalestate (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

having looked at a few pages shown of this source Conceptions of Philosophy:By Anthony O'Hear I just thought, since Socrates and after gave rise to philosophy in the modern sense, would it be strictly correct to say he had philosophical beliefs ? because it is defined now as philosophy, but at the time he and the associated thinkers were participating in something different to philosophy as is understood by those that participate in study and understanding of the thing which is understood as philosophy currently. Philosophical beliefs are formed against already existing philosophy, not by direct evaluation of reality in the sense that Socrates might have exercised his mind i.e. that he rejected cosmological and natural speculation and evaluation (of thinkers before him) for ethical thought. Really, the pre-Socratics were more scientific and thought has to have a pre-condition of thought to formulate beliefs against or for....? Whalestate (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

TA most definitely was not a biblical scholar - he never questioned for a moment that the bible was the word of God, and the suspension of that idea is the essential starting point for modern scholarship. But when we say "biblical scholar" what we really mean is a scholar who uses historical-critical methodology - it hadn't been invented in Aquinas' day. He's a theologian.PiCo (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who this "we" is you refer to, but not using a particular - modern - methodology, does not make someone's writings non-usable in Wikipedia. Thomas Aquinas is cited in many articles. Do you mean to remove all of them? His writings are reliable sources by any Wikipedia criteria. Myrvin (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that biblical scholars always suspend the idea that the Bible is the word of God. There are many biblical scholars who assume it and many who do not. Myrvin (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Guessing that your objection may be that Aquinas should not be in the Historicity section, I have moved him to Theology. Myrvin (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm happier with Aquinas in the theology section, but the essential objection is that he's a very old source - what do modern theologians think? A great many don't feel that the Virgin Birth is essential to Christian belief. Note also that Aquinas' words are profoundly anti-woman - woman is the source of all evil (original sin), therefore it was fitting that woman alone should be the source of the Christ, as she, not man (Adam), needed redemption. I have to confess that the very concepts are alien to e - and to most modern people, who don't feel that women are evil. PiCo (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I expect most religious comment, dealing with women, to be misogynistic - modern or not. Maybe Aquinas will be OK where I put him. Myrvin (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be referring to some other part of Aquinas, but the part cited seems to say that it is man's semen that 'carries' original sin. Therefore, Mary had to be uncontaminated by a man and Jesus had to be conceived without a man's semen. See here . One bonkers idea being supported by another. Myrvin (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, been enjoying the discussion of a/an usage. Came by your page to see what you get up to around here. Noticed you have a Batchelor of Science degree. I suppose that's acceptable variation, but some rank prescriptivists might say it was misspelt :) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice one - thanks!.Myrvin (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Myrvin, as you can see by this French Wikipedia page on Intelligent design (French: Dessein intelligent), they give both sides of the argument, presenting the subject in a more neutral tone. They write (translated from the French): "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory by its promoters, but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience, for reasons that both the internal facts of biology and also epistemological criteria cannot be rectified (the proponents of intelligent design appearing to biologists as having ignored numerous arguments, the more notable of which being the falsifiability criterion of Karl Popper)..." I am, therefore, quick to admit that the WP article on Intelligent design should at least attempt to show that ID is viewed differently by different folks, and that even if it were not a scientific theory, per se, it is still a philosophical question suggestive of something else beyond what is seen by our naked eye, and that some biochemists (i.e. Michael Behe) and physicists (i.e. Albert Einstein) have entertained that notion as a real possibility, given all their scientific experience. Do you think that it would be possible for us to incorporate something along the lines of the French article into our own English article, and to admit that there is a philosophical question that has been the subject of debate (or of mere musings) by some respected people of the scientific community?Davidbena (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This shouldn't be here. I'll copy it to the article Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I see it's there as well. Please don't lobby me about things going on in article Talk pages.Myrvin (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Myrvin. It may just be me, but having been here a while, I've never interpreted a bullet point (please stop using "blob", it's a bullet point) as a way of shouting over others. Have you got any evidence that this is actually the case or are you just surmising? Given the claims on your talkpage of your experience and works, I'm surprised by your edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have surprised you RM. I didn't mean to. I was really interested in why the bullet was being used, as I hadn't come across it being used that often. I found Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines quite late in the discussion. It seemed to suggest that they were not a good idea. But I don't want to upset other editors. See what's happening on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Looking for a word or phrase. Not good! Myrvin (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I honestly believe that, in this massive tome of work, the use of bullets, deliberate or otherwise, is so inconsequential as to render the discussion lame. Of course you're welcome to continue to push your point, but I would suggest that 99.9% of people who use bullets or bullets and colons or colons only have no idea why you would equate it to WP:SHOUT. My recommendation would be to use your precious time more usefully, by improving articles, but of course that's entirely your decision. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

[Edit clash]I have now surrendered in the discussion. Myrvin (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll also stay off Reference Desks. Myrvin (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Myrvin. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Sexuality of Lewis Carroll".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Teleological argument has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)