User talk:Abtract

CIMA

Abtract: I noticed your comment on my talk page about my entry on the CIMA page. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and CIMA announced last week that the credential to be issued by their joint venture will be the Chartered Global Management Accountant (CGMA) credential. The joint venture will begin issuing the CGMA credential early in 2012. This is what I wanted to reflect in my edit of the CIMA article. If I was not clear enough please change in accordingly. I am a member of a national AICPA committee and received the AICPA press release on the subject last week. Regards. FLAHAM (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I reverted your edit for three reasons. First, it seemd odd as I couldn't quite see how a global qualification could be chartered (who would issue the charter?). Second, there was no citation which is a sign that it may not be correct. And last, when I went to your talk page I saw that your only contact with the WP world seemed to have also been rejected by another editor. Having said all that, you make a good sounding rebutal and I an now inclined to think you probably know what you are talking about. To put my mind at ease and avoid someone else reverting you, can I suggest that you include a citation? Apologies for reverting and thanks for stopping by. Abtract (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, at your suggestion I have added to the CIMA article a reference to the AICPA press release on the new Chartered Glogal Management Accountant credential. Regards.FLAHAM (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC) By the way, I am the primary author of two articles and have contributed to perhaps two dozen.

Thanks. Abtract (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(Not a) Warning

If you continue interacting with other editors like you did in the section above, I shall have to seriously consider nominating you for adminship... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, enough already. Abtract (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your most recent edit on Mythology

Hi. I just noticed your most recent edit on Mythology: you reworded a sourced statement, changing the word "men" to "humans"; your edit summary says, "There are quite a few women in myths". [1] I'm a bit puzzled by this edit summary. It seems to suggest that you reworded the sentence because you thought that it was factually incorrect (e.g. that it limited human involvement in myths to male human involvement). Of course, as you probably know, you can't just change a sourced statement (even a factually incorrect one) while leaving the citations in place, because that might cause the statement to say something other than what the sources say. Now, I haven't reverted your edit, both because it was obviously a good-faith edit and because it seems rather innocuous. I mean, the word "men" in that sentence was clearly being used to denote humans in general, so your edit didn't actually change the meaning of the sentence. Please don't get the wrong idea: I'm not here to pick a fight with you. I'm just mildly confused about the rationale behind your edit. Were you simply trying to update the sentence to reflect modern English usage (in which "man" is no longer the usual term for referring to humans in general)? If so, then I have no objection. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely what I was trying to do. I certainly won't go to the stake on it, and I did consider that I may be changing the cited work's wording. However, there are three cited works and it wasn't shown in quotes so I guessed it was probably a paraphrasing in which case my new paraphrasing, I hoped, would reflect both the intention of the authors and modern mores. If you, knowing the cited works as I guess you do, think the previous wording is a better reflection of their meaning, please revert my edit. And thanks for stopping by with such an elegantly worded query. Abtract (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Genesis creation

If you want the current scholarly understanding of how the Pentateuch came to be written, see Priestly source and Jahwist - the PS is responsible for chapter 1 and J for chapter 2. PiCo (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems very useful I will look at it in more detail after my hols. Abtract (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Speed of light

RE: "Clearly you did not read my edit or the edit summary where [I] REMOVED THE 'A'."

Er... yep. Excuse me, pardner, but it's Monday and I'm a bit trigger-happy today; I thought that an edit war was in progress. – IVAN3MAN (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem ... I was hoping it was that. Abtract (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Hand evaluation

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hand evaluation , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Newwhist (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded there.Abtract (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Equations of motion "too far"...

Just to let you know - I have replied at the talk page.-- F = q(E + v × B) 10:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I had seen your reply but sadly don't really have the time to respond adequately (studying). My main point is that, although your edit included much good material, I feel it overwhelms what should be the main thrust of the article i.e. the SUVAT equations of motion. It's not so much that these are more important or more correct, it's that I believe these are what is being sought by almost all readers of this article ... of course, I may be wrong. If you could find some way of making these the core of the article and relegating the more esoteric equations to later additional information, I would be happier. However, you obviously know a lot about this subject and I certainly don't intend to fight you on it. Thanks for your courtesy in stopping by to alert me to your response. Abtract (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interrupt you like that with such a long (and probably patronizing) response... =( I'll see what I can do to make it better, perhaps the easiest thing is to reverse the order of the material currently in the article, SUVAT before the new content. Its just that these are very limited in scope and application, the true eqns of motion are Newton's law etc. (On top of this one, right now i'm trying to make the Dirac equation article better, in addition to some others, which are slightly more important)...

PS Good luck with your studies (I am too) Happy New Year also! =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 14:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if you found it patronising; that wasn't my intention. Happy New Year to you too. Abtract (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I meant I (F = q(E+v^B)) was patronizing when I replied on the talk page - not you (Abtract)! =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 09:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks. Abtract (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I promise I’ll stop bugging you at some point, I know you're busy so please only answer when you have time: but what do you think of the article now? The scene is set for making it a real article worthy of its title, at least compared to what it was before. I compromised the inclusion of the SUVAT equations into a kinematics section and Newton's laws into a Dynamics section. The E-L eqns, Hamilton’s eqns and electrodynamics eqn etc are left to the end.-- F = q(E + v × B) 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to view it all in detail but it looks better. I have slightly altered the lead where it refers to SUVAT to make it clearer (?). Keep up the good work (no patronising intended!). Abtract (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements - you did an excellent job! (especially if you are not specilized in physics/maths), right now i'm in the middle of schrodinger's equation, otherwise I would have carried on, I will come back to it soon. And please - you do not patronize anyone!!! =) I did at the talk page, but whats done is done. -- F = q(E + v × B) 19:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cribbage (strategy) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cribbage (strategy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cribbage (strategy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Input to discussion

Your input is welcome on two discussions which may be of interest.

1. Proposed deletion (or renaming) of the following categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Politics_of_the_British_Isles
   1. Category:Politics of the British Isles
   2. Category:Political parties in the British Isles
   3. Category:Political movements of the British Isles
2. Proposed deletion of the following article [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles]
   1. Politics in the British Isles

Thanks, --KarlB (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)