User talk:Professor marginalia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] expelled
thanks for your trying to improve the Expelled article. But the tone will not change, I am afraid. Northfox (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- And I have been meaning to drop by and say you brought up some very good points. It's unfortunate that about the same time we had an onslaught of POV pushing folks who were/are wholly unfamiliar with ID and the subject matter which makes good for nothing productive and your suggestions went by the wayside as everyone was focussing on the riff raff. Bad timing happens. For the moment (and I do mean moment) things have calmed down, the folks causing the distractions seem to have found something else to occupy their time. I was going to suggest that you bring your ideas on improving the article to the talk page again. I suggest you take one small bit at a time and be as specific as you can. Angry Christian (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In case you are interested in Expelled, please see User talk:Merzul/Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/rewrite. (It is a co-incidence that it ended up on my user page, I'm not in charge). It is meant to be an opportunity to experiment with different structures and different tones of voice. Also, since it's not live we can allow the pro-ID crowd to basically do what they want without immediately reverting and without losing our temper. I assume you are yourself against ID, but raised issues about the tone? I had similar concerns, so feel free to check it out. (This rewrite is not intended to replace the main page; but if it succeeds, the idea would be to show editors, such as Guetterda, who asked to see something different, what an alternative to the current page would look like). Merzul (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Expert opinion needed
Request for comment on Talk:David Snoke. It would be great if you could help with this. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Woodrow Wilson
I'm wondering if you can help me with getting the article on Woodrow Wilson to Featured Article status.--Briaboru (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Woodrow Wilson
No, just myself at the moment. Perhaps i should recruit more mebers' services.--Briaboru (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] True-believer syndrome
I share your concerns about tagging articles with this possibly not notable category, especially since many of the articles are not associated with paranormal. It seems not well documented the extent that: "It has since been applied, more loosely, to refer to any belief without empirical or logical foundations." Ward20 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I may have gone over the top with turning this into a category. I would like to continue the discussion on the True-believer syndrome discussion page to give other interested parties a better chance to find the discussion and contribute.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here would be best: Category_talk:True-believer_syndrome. You could post a notice on the article talk page, but a discussion of the use of the category probably belongs on the category talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I had already started my rant on the True-believer syndrome talk page before you suggested this. There is probably little point in persisting with the category if I cannot substantiate the term True-believer syndrome as being in notable usage.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please see my comments on your talk page. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I had already started my rant on the True-believer syndrome talk page before you suggested this. There is probably little point in persisting with the category if I cannot substantiate the term True-believer syndrome as being in notable usage.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
