User talk:Jwy/Archives/2009/March

Union Academy Article

Jwy, we're not really sure how to merge our article with Macon County's, however if you'd like to, your more than welcome to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.15.129 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait and see if anyone else pipes in on the talk page and will then help out as I can. And it would be useful (to you and others) if you signed up with an account here to distinguish yourself from the others that edit from that address (they can be prone to vandalism|). (John User:Jwy talk) 17:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitman Article

Thanks Jwy. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page about the term "motivation" is in order. I can't put my own research findings as to why Whitman went up on the tower because of the WP:OR and SYN issues. However, the bulk of his burdens can be found in the works of Harry Stack Sullivan and B. F. Skinner, among a few others. I'm sure some compromize can be worked out.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If the goal is to resolve the free will versus determinism thing in general, I think we are on the wrong article and probably the wrong forum! I think it would be appropriate (and interesting) to report what people have published about what they think brought him to be there. I certainly wonder (both about Whitman and those in the news in recent days). (John User:Jwy talk) 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Hardly, I think it's wonderful that we can all agree so wholeheartedly. arimareiji (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with them? What on earth would be the point in doing that? That's silly. Good luck on this article from here out, by the way. I'm sure you'll find them completely willing to compromise rather than knee-jerk agreeing with everything Victor says. Have fun. arimareiji (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just my buttons Jwy, look at his recent exchanges on the Whitman talk page. His WP:3o wore out 200 opinions ago. I refuse to work with someone who uses subliminal bantering to make himself appear superior. You even pointed out to him my willingness to discuss OR and SYN, but he doesn't care about that. He is ego-centric and pushy in an area he knows nothing about. I want nothing to do with him, you have shown good faith and a willingness to move on. He hasn't! I will NOT respond to him anymore, it is that simple. Now, onto to your request, would you mind clarifying what you mean by others opinions about what brought Whitman to the tower? There is very little on the net, usually mixed with erroneous info. For example, the Gumby issue, read the headline in the link, the write states he died 30 years after the incident - 2001 minus 1966 is 35 years plus a few months. If the author can't subtract correctly, what is the rest of the story going to contain?--Victor9876 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mitsube's issue...

Please kindly check User_talk:Mitsube#Very_bad_editing_style.... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

John Nash

I guess John Forbes Nash, Jr. would be the guy most people would look for. I reckon John Nash should link to him and then have that page have a link back to the disambiguation page.

All the rest aren't particularly more notable than the others and so alphabetical is as good a way as any to list them. Isn't really enough names to split them into groups.--EchetusXe (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaya

I am glad that you recognized without any preaching from me that content is immensely more important than format. If the info added is incorrect or nonnotable, this must be judged by discussion of the corresponding article. It is clear that the contributor was not very well skilled in ropes and handles of wikipedia, and to delete his contribution just because he put it into a wrong place would be quite unfriendly, since he is not a joker or vandal. Thank you for your patience. - 7-bubёn >t 17:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Hilbert

We have been engaged in discussing a seriousl disputed sentence in article Hilbert which you have now modified. You have made no reply to my last comment, have not signled any advance notices of your of edits, have not commented responsively or explained the process to your minimalistic edits, leaving the sentence still with many problems with no citations in support. Have you concluded? Is this your best effort? do you intend to provide citations to some source? Should we declare the matter at impasse and remove the sentence until it can be resolved? --Pie are round (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What Rathole?

I've just returned and made a few changes specifically, which one are you referring to?--Victor9876 (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you please provide a link to the NOR process for our review on the talk page, thank you?--Victor9876 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You really are an irritating person. In the future, don't address me at all. People like you can't see the forrest for the trees, and frankly, I refuse to discuss the differences with you!--Victor9876 (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to disagree with you without being irritating if you can tell me how. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)