User talk:Dannyno
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
- Be Bold!
- Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
- Meet other new users
- Learn from others
- Play nice with others
- Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
- Tell us about you
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.
We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 19:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Boo
Are you dannyno from mono? Morwen - Talk 15:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yep. Handy tip - you can sign/date your comments with ~~~~. and welcome. ;) Morwen - Talk 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- or do I just reply here? I knew about the signing thing. Dannyno 15:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Islamofascism & Malise Ruthven
Thanks for the lead: I've added the link to my sources page. I see your provided some context for the citation in the Neofascism and religion article: where did you find the citation? It's too old for LexisNexis: I'd like to check it, but I'm not sure how I should go about it. --- Charles Stewart 15:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- It can't be too old for LexisNexis, since that's exactly where I found it!--Dannyno 15:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Got it, thanks, I must have been misusing the search terms. Looks definitive, good lead. --- Charles Stewart 18:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Secularism -- too many capitals
Hello. Please try to avoid gratuitously capitalized initial letters in section headings, as in your edits to secularism (I've fixed that one). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michael Hardy 02:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the tip, will do. --Dannyno 09:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Atheism
Great edits to the atheism article! Lockeownzj00 08:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much! --Dannyno 08:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Atheism
I was going to revert the article to a much earlier version because it did not comply with WP:MOS, meaning that your many good contributions to the article would be lost in the revert and needed to the folded back in. After taking a swack at folding back in those lost additions, it's apparent that just going back to your last version and working on the intro to get it to comply with the MOS is the path of least effort here, so... I've reverted my revert and done just that by moving the historical background content into a subsection immediately following the intro, which brings it into alignment with the MOS. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recent "meal" deletion on Secularism
I'm not sure this warrants a comment on the talk page of Secularism, and I didn't want to just change your edit without explaining it. Your logic puts us in a quagmire. We would have to remove game playing and bathing as well because they "can be" religious activities just as much as eating a meal (as in there are plenty of religious rituals of purity that involve bathing, and the line between ritual and play, even in religious settings, is often non-existent. In fact if you extend the logic fully then any activity "could be" a religious activity--for instance in Zen Buddhism. Even shopping. The rest of the sentence reads "... because there is nothing inherently religious about them". The key is that there is nothing "inherently" religious about them. That includes meals, shopping, bathing, etc. Sorry for the long explanation.PelleSmith 12:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- That wasn't quite my point. I was quite happy with "meal" in the first place, but then it got changed to "fast food". Either that was done abusively (i.e. secular activities aren't as 'nourishing' as religious ones..), or because eating meals is something that is often done religiously. So, should it just get changed back to "meal", or should we change the example to escape the potential argument entirely? I thought the latter was a clearer approach. Otherwise you could have "circumcision" as a secular activity because it's not inherently religious. We don't want to get bogged down in that kind of thing. --Dannyno 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References for Spanish Revolution
Hi. Someone at Spanish Revolution is saying it doesn't have enough references for such an important topic. Would you know of any good ones to add? Marnanel 03:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Atheism
You seem to know what you're talking about. Can you suggest a rewrite for the first couple sentences of the lead section (unless you like the current version). Please leave a suggestion at Talk:Atheism. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 11:57Z
Dannyno, I manipulated the indentation of your comment because it was unclear who left the first paragraph. If the first paragraph was intended as an immediate response, then unindent the rest of it, but sign the first paragraph as well. Thanks. --Merzul 14:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] clinical
Hi, no one wants to call mckeith a "clinical nutritionist". Most people want to use the term "nutritionist", one person keeps reverting to "non clinical nutritionist". In the UK anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. A clinical nutritionist is someone who sees clients - they don't need any qualifications to do this. I'm trying to re-write the nutritionist article, to include information about the different types of nutritionist - ie: unqualified homeopaths all the way to qualified, registered "non-clinical nutrition scientists" (who'd work for food companies). Kind Regards, Dan Beale 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Israel Shahak
I've never understood why Israel Shahak has to be treated so badly in his article. Articles I've seen for Muslims who've had problems with their faith are supportive eg Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's a proven lier, and I'd be surprised if any Muslim defends her. Why can Shahak not be allowed to say and do his thing? He's held in considerable esteem by some of the very religion he's attacked (eg Noam Chomsky). For "experts" on this religion to come along and insist that the theology of a dead man is wrong is POV and unfair. These are his views, this is his testimony, there's no reason he should not have an article that's "fair" to him. PalestineRemembered 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)