User talk:E8: Difference between revisions
→Biodiesel: Burden is to prove, not to disprove - content removal correct by procedure |
→Why?: new section |
||
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) |
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) |
*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? |
Revision as of 23:45, 6 November 2012
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III 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) |
- 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)
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)
- The content is still there. If your account is compromised, see here.--E8 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- I removed the 3RRR tag; thanks for reading the Talk and entry log.--E8 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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 (sodium hydroxide IUPAC name)
I have answered to your reply on talk:sodium hydroxide. It was actually a spelling mistake from my part.Vanischenu mTalk 12:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
- I read the talk page on CBPP. I thought you had support already?--E8 (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?