User talk:Gnusmas

Welcome!

Hello, Gnusmas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! FloNight ^talk 11:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fmt ref

Hi, thanks for fomatting the NHS ref for me - I will learn how!

Rgds

Springnuts 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elk

The decsion to divide the articles Elk and Red Deer was decided recently due to new DNA evidence and long discussions on the article talk page at Talk:Red Deer. The new Elk article is fine, and I am going to be working on the Red Deer article to make it species specific.--MONGO 08:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could lets keep the discussion on this move at Tal:Red Deer so it's all in one place. I'll watch that article as always.--MONGO 09:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...it's a collaborative wiki and I think the new title will work out fine. Still fixing the links and will make further adjustments ot each article so they are species specific. In time, the articles will end up looking fairly different as new contributors work on them.--MONGO 09:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that...good catch you did here--MONGO 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Gnusmas for inserting the references into my Pacemaker History edits. Hopefully I'll learn how to use html templates before long.RegardsGeoffrey Wickham 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serial comma

Hi Gnusmas,

I enjoyed reading the serial comma discussion. I didn't want to post there since things seem to have calmed down but I did want to leave my impression of what may have initiated the confusion. Although it is explicit on the discussion page, the "To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God" example in the main article does not specifically mention that the ambiguity may arise from the commas potentially being either parenthetical or serial. Perhaps it seems obvious, but don't forget the Oxford-colored glasses some of us look through :-)

Best,

Jeffery.griffith 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrhythmia Alliance

When someone directly affiliated with a group adds external links to multiple articles for the sake of promoting that group, I think it's fair to call it external link spam. In addition, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond which the article itself would provide if it were a featured article is considered a link to normally to be avoided. Best, MoodyGroove 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

I defer to your judgment in this matter. Thank you for the reply. Best, MoodyGroove 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Nicholas Beale

You voted on this article's AFD previously. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 17:09Z

Why can't you face truth and why do you keep reverting?

Hi Gnusmas. You seem to be another example of an Atheist who can't face basic truths, and prefers serial reverting. Dan Dennett clearly states "Some people are sure that the world would be a better place without religion. I am not persuaded, because I cannot yet characterise anything that could replace it in the hearts of most human beings." but you keep reverting the properly refed and utterly incontrovertable statement in the article that "However Dennett is not persuaded that the world would be a better place without religion, because he cannot yet characterise anything that could replace it in the hearts of most human beings^[1]". WikiPedia is not about Mob Rule, so your reverting clearly objective facts is not helpful. To say to another serial reverter "good work" rather emphasises the point about "mob rule" it seems to me. If there is something amiss with the statement, why not improve it rather than try to hide it? NBeale 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The links I removed on cardiomyopathy and myocardial infarction were both added by Danjeffers (talk · contribs) who has previously been adding lots of links to lots of articles. On closer review, the NHLBI pages contain practically the same information as the Wikipedia articles in question, but completely lack sources. I would not support re-adding them unless I can be convinced of their usefulness. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NNT

What dis you think of the BW explanation of NNT I had in the reference section? I think its the best explanation I have seen in plain english. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

schema = background knowledge and needed to understand language

You will notice that some misinterpretation are less likely to occur because of our knowledge od the word while in other cases it is our knowledge of grammar. Schema covers both so we use it a lot in discourse analysis. My encarta #2 definition says “an organization or conceptual pattern in the mind”. The link, however, sends us to the Kantian philosophical principle, which is less useful in this context, I’m afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 07:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So where should the link take us? Is there a WP article that can be usefully linked to here? I changed it from a link to the less-than-helpful disambiguation page at Schema, but I wasn't (and still am not) sure where it should lead us. Is there an article that should be there but isn't? Do you need to write an article on schema of this particular sort? GNUSMAS : TALK 08:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... even if we come out on the opposite side of the issue, for your kind words.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it! I really am amazed, however, as I said here. Doesn't NB realise how much he annoys people by constantly pleading, and how that does his cause no good? It's almost impossible to look at the issue coolly, because of gross interference by the article subject. It would be intersting to see what might happen if he stepped back and let things take their course. You certainly would not be fighting such an uphill battle then. GNUSMAS : TALK 08:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I gather I'm the only one able to look past that. It appears to me that many (most?) of the voters have let their feelings about the subject influence their votes. I've, though I don't know the fellow, managed to just look at the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Dennett in debate with Richard Swinburne, Prospect March 2006

[1] Dennett in debate with Richard Swinburne, Prospect March 2006

[1]