User talk:Army1987
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Army1987 is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
I will usually reply to messages on this same page, if you want to be answered on your talk page please ask me so.
Contents |
[edit] Lonely Day
I changed "Lonely Day" into a song stub because it doesn't fit into the "metal category", even though it's by System of a Down. It's more of a soft-rock with a hard rock twist to it, not metal. --WereWolf Febuary 1, 2006 3:30 P.M. Mountain Time. (UTC)
[edit] Lonely Day
I guess wew can do that . . .and how did you know it was me that changed thee metal-song-stub??
[edit] Hi there...
I came across your page on Category:teenage wiipedians.... and i am impressed by the stuff on your user page... i think its one of the best pages i have ever seen..... i saw your interest on music and thought maybe you'd like the song by my band "Cosa Nostra" ......heres the link to the song....
If you wanna Download the song: [[1]]
Or If you wanna Stream it:
[[2]]
Tell us what you think on my talk page.....
Thanks a lot..
Jayant, 17 Years, India|(My Talk) 18:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you....
Hii....
Thanks a lot for your comments.....we are still looking for a drummer......and it might some more time before we find one.... coz drummers are hard to find in India....
Thanks a lot again.....
Jayant, 17 Years, India|(My Talk) 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dude!
You have played the guitar intro of Toxicity on a church organ? Awesome! (Sorry, I saw it on the two-millionth article pool and thought that was fantastic. Sadly, I haven't done it myself. :D) -- Sarsaparilla39 10:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not so hard. You play the C-G arpeggio with your right thumb and ring finger, then you move your hand to play the Eb-Bb part with the same fingers. For the following you use your little finger to play A's, and then middle/ring/little fingers for A/Bb/C. (At least, this is the naïve way I play it, I've never been formally taught to play piano or keyboards so I don't know what would be the most 'proper' way to do that.) --Army1987 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tartini and difference tones
Greetings! I attempted to clarify the passage you mentioned; hopefully it's better now (someone else had already fixed it up a bit before I got there). Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Army1987 20:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reminder...
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Redirection page
I saw your note that it was not wise to redirect my user page to my article page. Thanks, I've since un-redirected my user page. For the rest you recommend, please see my User page and comment there please.
[edit] you were completely right about Physical constants
and User:Kehrli's edits were both bad writing and bad physics. there are some POV disputes regarding the nature of dimensionless/dimensionful physical quantities that he is having elsewhere (that i do not wish to touch). i am not sure, but i think that he actually does not fully understand the nature of such yet is fully convinced that he understands it better than the mainstream physics understanding of the subject. please, if someone makes scientific fallacious edits that you know are wrong, don't just complain, fix them. i didn't have it on my watch page so it wasn't until yesterday that i discovered this (and fixed it). best regards. r b-j 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The current version of the article seems ok to me, I'm just making some minor style tweaks. However, that edit had screwed up the POV of the article that the only way I saw to fix it was to completely revert that, and I was unsure on wheter that was the right thing to do. --Army1987 09:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- it depends on you level of technical certainty or moral certainty. if you know something is wrong or someone's personal POV (rather than the POV accepted by the consensus of the experts and/or practitioners in that particular discipline), sure, revert the bastard. r b-j 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Army, Rbj, I do not want to appear arrogant but I think you changed back for worse the article of Physical constant. Please read Talk:Physical_constant#Removed_paragraph for a more detailed explanation. Please think about it and let me know your conclusions. Obviously this needs a deeper discussion, but I think you guys are wrong on this one. This subject, btw, has nothing to do with the m/z struggle that I was taken in somewhere else. In both cases I am fighting a wide-spread opinion that is wrong. Sorry that my edits are sometimes badly written. I am very short of time (as you are) and I only edit when I find a serious error, as I think there is in the Physical constant article. I am aware that some people try to present me as a maveric-editor. However, before you get influenced by those please make your own opinion and carefully rethink your arguments. I think both of you have the IQ to do this. Thanks, --Kehrli 10:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
