User talk:Lucaas

User_talk:Lucaas/archive

[edit] You win

And good luck.Dbuckner 06:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being and Time

Lucaas, thank you for the compliment. But I feel I have to remind you of the comments I addressed to you here (and which you seem to have removed, not being in your "archive" either), in which I appealed to you to consider the possibility that your competency in scholarship and in writing may be in need of improvement. The problem is that by not recognising this and adjusting your behaviour, it is dis-spiriting to others. I unfortunately do not have the time to argue every single point you wish to bring up on a talk page, or every single edit you make to an article, when I consider that (not all, but) far too many are incorrect, ill-conceived, or poorly expressed. You just don't take enough care. Not to mention that you often give the appearance of looking for an argument. So I appreciate your wish for me to continue, but at this point I feel incapable of doing so. Perhaps at another time. Mtevfrog 07:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is how you can show good faith and good intentions: delete the paragraph you most recently contributed to the entry on Being and Time. And then commit to not contributing any further to the entry without seeking approval first. Mtevfrog 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How are you?

I'm back from vacation, or forced leave. --Ludvikus 17:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules on reversion

Hi Lucas. The two rules you need to look at are Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Consensus. The last is actually more helpful as it explains what is a revert and what is not. I made a 'change' (i.e. deleted the section). You made a 'revert' i.e. changed it back. Yours is thus the first revert, and presumably you can follow the logic. You can ask for a new consensus about your revert (see 'the consensus can change' in the second article). But you have to initiate this. With every kind wish. Dbuckner 13:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schism section

I have reverted back to JJL version. If you want your version in, it is not enough to mention it on the talk page. There has to be a consensus. Got that? Dbuckner 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop squabbling, stop reverting. The section is too long for the general article. Shorten, with links to the specialized article. Rick Norwood 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physics

Lucas, it sounds like you had some good ideas for the physics article. Please be bold and make your changes! Gnixon 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)