![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Vert, two bendlets &c was awarded (since you ask). (NO I DID NOT) to me, or more precisely to the fictional character that I played in the SCA, by the West Kingdom of that society in recognition of my (his?) service in its college of heralds. But that character is dead. (Or should I say 'dormant'?)
You invited me to "literally question anything" other than your oath. (RETRACTED) I asked whether that includes permission to question your sanity (NO YOU DID NOT). You have a problem with that? (YES I DO)
An argumentum ad hominem is of the form "N has a character flaw, and therefore N's statement is invalid"; this is rather like denying the antecedent. It is not argumentum ad hominem to say "N makes statements A B C, which are fallacious for reasons X Y Z, and incidentally from N's statements I infer X about N's character"; the inference is the other way 'round. If one were to say such a thing, N would be wise to examine the statements in question and ask Nself why they might lead to such an inference.
(THIS STATEMENT IS A SLANTED-AD HOMINEM, ie AGAIN, ATTACKING THE ARGUER, RATHER THAN HIS ARGUMENT, OR ITS CONCLUSION.)
Hypothetically.
Do you really think that I am not aware of the ‘blatantly obvious’ circumstances of my stated situation? (NOTE TO SELF)
Your situation hasn't been stated to me in any useful detail, on account of the Official Secrets Act, remember? (CORRECT) So I don't know what circumstances you mean. (YES YOU DO) (Are you quoting the words 'blatantly obvious' from me? (NO) I hope I haven't used such a pleonasm recently.) (NOTE TO SELF)—Tamfang (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You asked me a question, which I've answered with civility and the truth. Your uncivil responses, comments and opinions &c, are of no concern to me whatsoever. Stephen2nd ( talk) 13:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Vert, two bendlets &c was awarded (since you ask) [...]
You invited me to "literally question anything" other than your oath.
I asked whether that includes permission to question your sanity
An argumentum ad hominem is of the form "N has a character flaw, and therefore N's statement is invalid"; this is rather like denying the antecedent. It is not argumentum ad hominem to say "N makes statements A B C, which are fallacious for reasons X Y Z, and incidentally from N's statements I infer X about N's character"; the inference is the other way 'round. If one were to say such a thing, N would be wise to examine the statements in question and ask Nself why they might lead to such an inference.
Your situation hasn't been stated to me in any useful detail, on account of the Official Secrets Act, remember?
So I don't know what circumstances you mean.
The fleur de lys is in the style of the user Sodacan, whose heraldry is used a lot on that page. He has used it in this file for example. Adelbrecht ( talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
About VP, what do you think?
I think picking and choosing is the worst way. Either have them all (as decided by reliable sources) or none of them. I tend to favor none of them a bit but can see the other side, too.
Please express your opinion on VP if you have any wisdom. Hakkapeliitta ( talk) 02:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
(3 3 4)![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
File:Hyperbolic tiling 3x3x4x.png![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
File:Hyperbolic tiling 3x3x4o.png![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
File:Hyperbolic tiling 3x3o4o.png![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
File:Hyperbolic tiling 3o3x4x.png![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
File:Hyperbolic tiling 3o3x4o.png![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(4 3 3)![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() [OLDER] |
![]() Domains |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Drat, one of them didn't get a proper filename. — Tamfang ( talk) 22:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Anton, What do you think on this? See Clifford torus and Talk:Clifford torus. Tom Ruen ( talk) 05:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, you say "the edges meet in fives". What does that mean? What I see is three edges meeting at each vertex. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 19:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Concerning your "holy mission" to stamp out "a thing as a term" language, you can be overenthusiastic. For example, the recent change you made in Nudity in film was unwarranted. The original said "Nudity in film" refers to…. The quotation marks around the phrase means that the original poster was characterizing the page itself and its title, not nudity. If it had read Nudity in film refers to... without the quotation marks you would have been correct in changing it. But in this case, you were not. Embram ( talk) 19:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your unblanking of this article as it was undoubtedly copied from this source, and it has been pointed out that Minnesota state works are not automatically PD and so in the absence of an explicit release it must be assumed to be copyrighted, making the article a copyright violation. As the template says, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page" (emphasis original). VernoWhitney ( talk) 19:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Tamfang. First on List of lingua francas, and now at the present requested move, it seems our paths are fated to cross! I just wanted to talk to you about this edit: I don't think a comment like this is going to help the situation, especially with emotions already running high. Do you think you could do one of the things suggested at Wikipedia:Civility#Removing uncivil comments to mitigate the situation? I think it could save a lot of arguing. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Joyce Summers, has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"That would do as well. I am not a Buffy fan, so I do not know if she would be considered major or minor; I am just considering WP:NOTJUSTPLOT and WP:N. If she's a minor character, List of minor characters in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If not, List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters."
Saluton. Ŝajnas ke vi estas "the right man in the right place": mi tre mallertas en la angla lingvo, kaj tamen mi bezonas ekscii pri la Brita heraldiko, kiu ne estas sen konfliktoj, precipe ĉe "commons", kun la franca. Mia unua kaj ĉefa demando estas : kiuj estas (krom Fox-Davis) la "tenoroj" (la referencoj) en brita heraldiko ?
Vi povas respondi ĉi tie aŭ ĉe mia fr:Wikia paĝo
Mi tre dankas vin. Elkore, Serge Sire
Serge Sire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.235.22.174 ( talk) 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering that few to no other examples in the article Line use positioning in their intro (as opposed to their blazoning), perhaps "chief" should be removed from before Manning's use of "dancetty". I see the article as about the line and its variations, not about what position said line has in the field. Perhaps the lines' position in blazoning can be addressed in a separate paragraph? 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 11:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there is an arbitration request about the Arms of Bagrotioni. If you have time to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arms_of_Bagrotioni, we would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. - John Vandenberg ( chat) 02:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Tamfang, I know you're a big Buffy and also do some great copyediting work and was wondering If I ask for your assistance. I recently did an major overhaul and improvement of the " Restless" article ( the original state of the article). I think I'll probably ending up nominating it for a GA as I put quite a bit of work into it (pretty much how I spent this past Sunday, ha!). So yeah, guarantee there's some grammar errors and other things that probably need fixing. No rush obviously, just wanted to nicely ask you. Thanks! Drovethrughosts ( talk) 22:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Energy Lobby ... Fossil fuels lobby seems an appropriate new title. 99.181.140.229 ( talk) 04:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to have changed back your very correct and judicious edit of tempus to tempore. I was confused in thinking the latter was my original edit and you were saying it should be tempus, so I changed it in an attempt to effect your comment. Just shows my ignorance of Latin. These things are important. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC))
"Oh get real?" I've published on rhombi -- I am real. A "tilted square" is a square that has been tilted so that it is no longer a square. A "pushed over square" is a square that has been pushed over so that it is no longer a square. Just like a "toppled dictator" is a dictator who has been toppled so that he's no longer a dictator. It's too trivial a matter to get into an edit war about. But you should be more polite to people who legitimately disagree with you. Duoduoduo ( talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 22:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to revert you there. Normally I'd agree (it annoys me as well), but in the case of Proto-Sinaitic script the phrasing was intentional. I may be wrong, it which case I should be avoided, but here I think it may actually be a term and not a thing. That is, I've seen doubts that there was any single script to go with the label. — kwami ( talk) 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Best wishes for your campaign to stamp out "a thing is a term" language! Duoduoduo ( talk) 20:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The article Triangulating Sort has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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.
Glrx (
talk)
03:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anton. Can you make edge-vertex graphs of the Convex_uniform_honeycomb in orthogonal projections, two views, relative cubic honeycomb, one perpendicular to an edge (*442 symmetry), one perpendicular to the cube diagonal (*632 symmetry). Mainly I'm interested in the Wythoffian forms. I expect they should all look like the uniform tilings, or sets of these with overlays. I could try generating these by-hand from the orthogonal projections at Uniform_polyhedron#.284_3_2.29_Oh_Octahedral_symmetry, but automation from the real honeycomb is better! I can generate a few by vertex figures but never implemented a true Kaleidoscopic construction! (This can be done to help visualize the tetracombs too, and there's more projection planes!) Tom Ruen ( talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)