User talk:Wronkiew/Archives/2008/September

Actually

The word actually in general usage almost always means absolutely nothing. In those cases in which it adds meaning to the sentence, the sentence can usually be reworked to eliminate it, while improving the readability of the sentence.

Actually I think you are too fast in declaring this particular word 'almost always' meaningless. The fact that its meaning is often very subtle does not render it meaningless — I think I showed a very relevant use of it in the first sentence of this paragraph (actually brings in a sort of 'counterexpectational' meaning in this context). Furthermore, the fact that a sentence always can reworked to eliminate it does not amount to an argument for the 'meaninglessness' of actually. I would maintain that every change in (syntactic) structure causes a change in meaning. In other words, I believe in a non-arbitrary relationship between syntax and semantics (in fact I consider syntax to be a part of semantics). That is not to say that actually is not frequently abused by people who do not think enough about language and presentation.

Nice to meet you Wronkiew, and welcome to Wikipedia — I actually spotted you on Tuareg languages catching a typo. Happy editing! ¶ Mark Dingemanse (talk) 23:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rollback granted

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

SpaceXpla.net

Well, ok, I understand. Although I thought it was described good enough to be able to be referenced. But how about simply referencing to the official timeline itself (on another website) and adding that it happened 30 seconds before stage-separating according to this timeline, without judging the official version? That would rely solely on official material and just explain it. Would that be ok to add it to the article? greetings, ColdCase (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have added the "new version" based on the official press kit of SpaceX (with link to the spacex website) and the webcast. Well, I don't know why there is this discrepancy in the official version and the press kit/webcast, but I won't speculate about it in a wikipedia article ;) I can tell you the following: I'm a journalist and have already made an interview with SpaceX. To my question if they will stay so open hearted and tell everything about failures, they told me the following:

"Yes, it is basic customer service. We wish to continue to be as open as possible, within the limitation imposed by US State Department ITAR restrictions, which provide some challenges to any space company seeking to work in an entrepreneurial mode.
For example, during the Sea Launch failure earlier this year, ITAR restrictions required them to "pull the plug" on the broadcast as soon is it varied from the expected sequence.
Even if they'd wanted to continue to show the results of the failure, they could not, or they would face heavy fines."

So it is possible that they had to build in a delay into the webcast and shut the video down as soon as they realized the problem. Then they got in live and told us about the anomaly. Since the clock still was delayed it looked like they were ahead of time and told us about a failure which couldn't have occurred yet according to the clock. But that's just a theory ;) ColdCase (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, removed external link again. I thought that would be something different and users would profit out of the external link. Didn't want to spam or so ;) ColdCase (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Martyrdom of St Magnus

Sorry, but I have no idea how a copyright infringement has been detected here. There is no textual similarity beyond a broadly common description which would be inevitable: both my article and the text identified quote the names of the scenes, but since these are germane to the work they are merely quoted in both my entry and in the book to which you refer. Can you assist me in identifying what is wrong? Thanks. --Stevouk (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I 'got' the material from MaxOpus website at the British Library which *I* helped write!! I'm afraid the author of the book to which you refer has taken the sentence from that website for his or her book! I do find it amusing that my article has been deleted when my words were clearly copied in the first place. I don't feel inclined to bother re-insterting it since how can I know who has used it again. And why should I rewrite my own words in 'my own words'? Sorry for this rant but I suppose that's what happens in the big money, wheeling-dealing world of contemporary classical music!!--Stevouk (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism

Thanks for doing that. I was offline, so no, I wasn't aware of it. Cheers, Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: SpaceColonization Userbox

I'm not really working on the userbox, so if you're creating one (I don't know if you were implying that or not), yours would almost definitely be better than mine. As well, I'm not exactly sure how to make it "add the user to the WikiProject Space Colonization category". I just edited the template so maybe it does it now, but I truly don't know.

Also, I don't really like the pictures in them very much. But they were the best I could find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsimmons666 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh nice. I really like your templates. I'll leave my page there, just in case, but I'll hide the code so no one mistakenly uses the templates. --Bsimmons666 (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Philitas of Cos

Thanks for your review of Philitas of Cos; it was really quite helpful, especially the list of unfamiliar terms. I tried to fix all but one of the points raised (the one exception was grammarian), and responded in Wikipedia:Peer review/Philitas of Cos/archive1 #Wronkiew. Eubulides (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham

Hello Wronkiew, thanks for picking up the GAN of Ibn al-Haytham. I look forward to your review, and don't worry about it taking a while, it gives me plenty of time to fix anything you feel might need fixing! Deamon138 (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Prose issues. I am going to fix them like you ask (assuming I see no problems), but I was just wondering, a lot of these issues don't seem like issues to me, but since I'm willing to learn, could you explain some of them to me (maybe on my talk page) or point me to the relevant guideline, because I don't see the point in some of them? e.g. initiating to starting. Don't worry, I'll change it, I just don't understand why, and I'm an inquisitive guy. Thanks if you can. Deamon138 (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: protest

Damn it, he moved his talk page to archive it, so I didn't see those. Hrm..... I really don't know what to do here... His edits the last few days were good, but having those warnings less than two weeks ago is concerning. Since he's done better lately, would you have a problem if I leave his rollback, and just keep a very close eye on him? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GAN: Adrastea (moon)

Hey, thank very very much for the detailed comments. I believe I solved almost all of them, though I still have some issues with a few. Let me know what you think now. Nergaal (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for that attribution issue, all the issues should be solved now. I will take a look later tonight at that attribution. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! Nergaal (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my user page earlier today. I appreciate it. Canderson7 ^(talk) 22:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WHAT?

What I do wrong? Huh? Whaaaat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noamshouseparty (talk • contribs) 04:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia? What? What is considered? I speak to you, I need to know HOW talk wikipedia when good?

Thnx

Thanks for the rv on my page. --> Halmstad, Talk to me 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith

Thanks for the reversion of this edit on my userbox page, although the edit was the best example of Good Faith I have ever seen. The vandals are getting cuter! - weebiloobil (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I bestow upon thee The Barnstar of Diligence, because your review of Ibn al-Haytham was so detailed that I think it deserves this recognition. Well done, and keep up the hard work! Deamon138 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi there, you picked up some vandalism on my user page & reverted it. Thanks very much for doing that. Have no idea why that user picked on my user page, but there you go - there's no accounting for some folk! Happy editing --Whoosher (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)