User talk:Yardcock
|
Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. Thanks for your note on the new user log. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended. You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp. Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page. Happy editing, Isomorphic 04:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||||||
|
The Brian Roberts page looks terrific. You've been paid accordingly (and I added your initialization amount, too -- everyone gets 20 wikis for just being a part of the community, pretty cool, huh?) -- Matty j 02:57, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC) Regarding Welteislehre. Simply being false is not enough reason to call something a pseudoscience. That would at least take some persistence in its defence after contradictory evidence has been presented. In Hörbiger's time the means for proving or disproving the theory were not available. The claim that something is a pseudoscience (usually BTW written in one word in English), is the positive assertion that needs evidence. How does one distinguish between pseudoscience and what is merely an unporoven or unproveable theory? Many theories have been put forth over the centuries, and were eventually dropped when required by the evidence. Most of us who object to the characterization of something as pseudoscience, do not go so far as to claim that the practice or study in question is a valid one. Eclecticology 21:16, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC) GermansI've for long (a year, actually) been itched by the way Wikipedia-links are done with often sloppy distinctions between nationality, citizenship and ethnicity (with regard to persons) and also between nations and countries. This is particularly obvious in the case of people or entities that are denoted as German. A link to the Federal Republic of Germany is often outright unhistorical and wrong, but this has until now been the most usual. That's why I'm considering an article on Germans, which I've started at the temporary location User:Ruhrjung/Germans. I would wish to avoid too much of edit wars after having started to link to the article. In particular, I would not wish to see the current disputes over German-Polish matters automatically extend also to this article, why I kindly ask you for comments now, in advance, in order to try to find wordings acceptable to as many as possible of concerned wikipedians. I look forward to your comments at User talk:Ruhrjung/Germans. Vocabulary ProjectHi there, since I saw you registered as a translator I would like to know if you are interested in this. I have written a program for learning vocabulary. It is based on the belief that it is best to learn foreign words by learning typical sentences. I currently have files in English, French (with sound), Spanish, and Portuguese, Catalan is in the planning. The program can also be used for learning other stuff that works with the question/answer scheme, e.g. the theory for the driving licence or anatomy. It also uses images and sound files for alternation and in order to work on the pronunciation. If you are interested please check my page and let me know. Get-back-world-respect 00:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC) |
||||||||
Images for deletion
See my message to you at images for deletion --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:47, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
Deleted the BMP image, upon explanation --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:05, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)