User talk:NewTestLeper79
PROFILE · DISCUSSION · E-MAIL · RECENT EDITS · ARTICLES CREATED · TEMPLATES CREATED · AWARDS · TO DO
Please start a new section for new topics and sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Any reply will likely be posted on your talk page, but i will link to it from the original comment.
Finally, please keep article-specific comments on the relevant talk page; i'd prefer it if this page was used only for comments aimed specifically at me.
Re: Re: Template:Blackpool F.C. seasons
I understand WP:CSD#G7 and I would generally be inclined to delete the template, however, it's used on quite a few pages, which begins to get into a trickier situation. Is there any particular reason it needs to be deleted? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you do it before, it'll avoid an ugly red link on the articles when the template is deleted. : - ) Then feel free to re-tag it or leave a note on my talk page and I'll delete it. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
RE:Null Edits
Haha its ok, I'm clearing out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and there were all those pages in the CSD category but weren't nominated for deletion at all, which probably means someone put a speedy delete tag on a template that was transcluded onto all the other pages. The speedy on the template was probably removed, but the pages stay in the CSD category for a very long time (something to do with the job queue) until there is an edit to the page, which will force the page to reset, removing the page from the CSD category. So I threw some null edits on those pages to clear them from the category (sadly we have had admins accidently delete pages in cases like this). So yeah, theres your explanation :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 03:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Haha no problem, its always good to question people!! Cheers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Last Minute goals
Hi,
Apologies, you are correct on hyphenated last-minute goal, since it is defined in the article as not explicitly being in 'the' last minute. However, you've changed it to an - incorrect - chronological order - I assume moving only one example is a simple good faith mistake. There is no actual order to the article, and it is hard to determine a suitable order given certain goals are more notable than others due to the level and scope of the competition they were scored in. Once more notable examples are added, this may be changed. Thanks. Jw2034 (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Tidy up
Cheers for the tidy-up on Jeff Buckley. And sorry about the POV first try, i'm still pretty new, actually your gutting of the lead made me write a much better lead than originally was there i think, so thanks for that too! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Image talk:Ayre.jpg
Hi, Image fair use rationale is a veritable minefield but there must be a separate rationale for each page it is used in and the title of that page must be in the heading. See the examples at WP:FUG#Non-template. HTH. BlueValour (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say thanks! Your edits added value to what I was trying to acheive! I have roots in the village and keep meaning to work on it as a project at some point down the line. Cheers, --Jza84 | Talk 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
unger
this is my first signing in on this, so i'm not sure if my querie should go here or not, i was scanning through this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Unger, and was confused about this statement, i don't if it's a misunderstanding from the person who did the article or if it is truly what this philosopher believes: "Unger, moreover, has also used the paradox of the heap to argue for mereological nihilism, which entails that he, along with all other composite objects, does not exist." when i went to mereological nihilism page it's said: "only basic building blocks without parts exist" so what i'm basically asking is does he mean that we don't exist as objects? or that we don't exist at all which makes it sound like he's denying any sort of energy conversion or relatioship of these non-composited parts, meaning that he (the philosopher) has an ultimate material bias. which also destroys his quote "if we could see clearly" because if we could see clearly we would knoe we didn't exist therefore we couldn't see clearly because we don't exist? i'm not asking this to start a philsophical debate, i just want to know if could be put a little less ambiguosly.