User talk:E8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:45, 6 November 2012

Welcome to my talk page!
Please post new messages at the bottom of this page, and title and sign your posts appropriately. Also, please keep your posts concise and to the point, as I may and will decline to read verbose and/or rambling requests.

My Talk Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Appreciate your contributing to the Wind power talk page when it seemed that I was a lone voice in the wilderness. And in recognition of your ongoing efforts with renewable energy articles. Johnfos (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Johnfos. I'll try to keep things progressing on that page. It was markedly contentious there for a bit, but seems to be moving in the right direction now.--E8 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiesel

I apologize for the inconvenience caused by the article. I will have the edits removed right now. The account is not being handled by me. Smarojit (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content is still there. If your account is compromised, see here.--E8 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to revert all the edits made by a friend of mine, using my account. Apologies once again. Smarojit (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 3RRR tag; thanks for reading the Talk and entry log.--E8 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (sodium hydroxide IUPAC name)

I have answered to your reply on talk:sodium hydroxide. It was actually a spelling mistake from my part.Vanischenu m^Talk 12:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage

Fair enough. But maybe you can answer the question I posed. Why is it OK to use an author's conjecture on some articles but not on others? The correlation is 1:1 between the source used in the Tax Wikipedia article and the one used in the CBPP article. Could you please tell me how to communicate this clearly to someone with a partisan agenda without "protesting" it by engaging in a tendentious dispute in another article? 173.79.6.215 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the talk page on CBPP. I thought you had support already?--E8 (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I have mentioned the copy in the edit summary, plus, I have put a note on the talk page of both source page and destinate page. Why is it still invalid?

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 Fair enough. But maybe you can answer the question I posed. Why is it OK to use an author's conjecture on some articles but not on others? The correlation is 1:1 between the source used in the Tax Wikipedia article and the one used in the CBPP article. Could you please tell me how to communicate this clearly to someone with a partisan agenda without "protesting" it by engaging in a tendentious dispute in another article? [[Special:Contributions/173.79.6.215|173.79.6.215]] ([[User talk:173.79.6.215|talk]]) 18:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 *I read the talk page on CBPP.  I thought you had support already?--[[User:E8|E8]] ([[User talk:E8#top|talk]]) 01:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
+== Why? ==
+I have mentioned the copy in the edit summary, plus, I have put a note on the talk page of both source page and destinate page. Why is it still invalid?