User talk:Blanchardb
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
can you please tell me why this band doesnt reach the nobility requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.235.44 (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:MUSIC. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Saint Paul Principles
Hi i was wandering why the article does not meet the notability requirement? I just entered an outside reference form a local newspaper
Unsteady21 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Re : EU Olympic Team
Hi Please can you tell me why you want this page removing. I have added this page because I have read on Google news that the EU wants a Olympic team.
Thanks User : Edsteroo
- Simple. We have a policy against keeping blank or nearly blank pages. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
European Student Moon Orbiter
Hi Blanchardb. Thank you for your comments. I'd like the article to remain on Wikipedia, as I don't believe it to be blatent advertising. I admit that currently the article is lacking references and needs a good deal of work, but the aim of the article is purely to imform readers about the project. In that respect is no different to the many other articles for other satellites on Wikipedia.
The ESMO mission is backed by the European Space Agency, and currently over 100 university students are currently working on it. It aims to further lunar science and act to get kids interested in space exploration. There are no commercial goods or services being promoted via this page (although some teams do recieve sponsorship from aerospace companies)
I will endevor to fix the references as soon as possible. Can you suggest any other changes which would make the article read less like an advert?
Kind regards, EPS Paul (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The original version of the article sounded like 100 students is not enough, that you were writing this to recruit more people to participate in the project. In any case, you must refrain from using adjectives that claim any potential advantages to a not-yet-recruited reader. Just because a venture is non-commercial doesn't mean some article about it is automatically not an advertizement. Have you ever heard the sentence, "The Army wants YOU!"? It is an ad, even though there is nothing commercial about a military career. Well, the original version of your article sounded like that. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- As for further improvements that could be done to address the issue of the tone being promotional, the administrator who first declined my request did remove some promotional-sounding words, and I did more tweaking after him. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me what's wrong with: Jehovah literally means "He will bring Destruction"
This addition is strait forword with references. Please help me to see any errors. Thank you for your assistance, cerefhavu
Jehovah
It is claimed to be a direct phonetic transliteration, but a Hebrew biblical lexicon easily proves is not. The term Jehovah is a compound word in Hebrew. The first word of Jehovah is the Hebrew letter "yod", commonly printed "Je", pronounced "ye" (as in yes). "Ye" is a common Hebrew prefix, meaning third person future (he/she will). The name we know as Jesus was origionally Yeshua/Yeshu in Hebrew/Aramaic which was shortened from Yehoshua(Joshua). The name Yeshua is also a compound Hebrew word with the same prefix, the first Hebrew letter is "yod", pronounced "ye" which means third person future (he/she will); "shua" (shortened from "hoshua") means save or help. Yeshua/Yehoshua literally means "He will save" commonly translated in a single word, "salvation". In the term Jehovah, "ye" is a Hebrew prefix that means third person future (he/she will); hovah is a Hebrew noun meaning "ruin","desaster" or "destruction" (Strong’s Hebrew number 1943). Jehovah literally means "He will bring Destruction" or "The Destroyer" which is the opposite of "The Creator" or "I exist (I need nothing to sustain me.)". The Hebrew noun, hovah or howah (Strong’s Hebrew number 1943) meaning: ruin, disaster and destruction as in Ezekiel 7:26 and Isaiah 47:11. Similar to the Hebrew noun, havvah or hawwah (Strong’s Hebrew number 1942) meaning: ruin, destruction and calamity; or evil desire as in Job 6:2 and 6:30 which is not an attribute of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerefhavu (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with your addition is that, contrary to your assertion, you have not come up with any saources saying outright that "Jehovah" means what you say it does. Actually, by the tone of your comment, I can tell that none of your sources do, that the meaning "he will bring destruction" is your own conclusion. This kind of original research is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. Only widely accepted conclusions can be inserted, with the exception of notable minority opinions which must be marked as such. Fringe theories and personal syntheses cannot be included in Wikipedia under any circumstances. If you say that "Jehovah" means "he will bring destruction," you have to cite reliable authors who explicitly agree with your conclusion, especially in the case of a conclusion that has a potential for controversy. Otherwise, you must not make any mention of that. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
C. Matthew McMahon article
It was not vandalism because I created the article. There is not debate needed to have the article remain. No other person contributed to the article. Thanks you. Goategg (talk)