User talk:Myrvin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Little context in Simplebrain

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Simplebrain, by ZhongHan (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Simplebrain is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Simplebrain, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Born again Christian

(I changed it a little bit sorry, read it again.) Well a born again Christian is one that has realized that they cannot have everlasting life. So what they do is they ask god for there forgiveness for their sin. When you become a Christian you still sin but the reason that they do not lose there salvation is because they still believe in Jesus Christ. I hope that this answered your questions if you have ANY other questions fell free to ask. I would be very happy to answer them. Holtville (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Good questions! Well let me try to explain. We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god. See god has NEVER sinned so we as sinners cannot go to heaven because God cannot have sinful nature around him. So because he loves us so much he sent his only son, Jesus, to die on the cross for our sins. See he died on the cross to give us a chance to go to heaven. Also, Jesus lived a sinless life. So God said that the only way that he would forgive the sins of the world was that innocent blood would have to be shed which is Jesus’ blood. Thus, if you believe that he died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day and that he died for our sins to be forgiven and you confess your sins then you are saved and you are a Christian.

Question 1: Is there a limit to the sinning, after which Heaven won't have them? Answer: No there is no limit to sinning! That is the beauty of God's grace he will forgive ANY sin as long as you ask for forgiveness. Heaven will have anybody that believes in Jesus crucifixion, resurrection and ask forgiveness of there sins.

Question 2: Can she do what she wants and still go to Heaven? Answer: I don't really understanding what you are trying to ask. Maybe the paragraph answered it.

I hope this answered your questions. See what you have to understand (it took me a while to understand it to) is that God is a loving God he loves everyone. He is not out to get you he is out to love you and to forgive you of your sins. Now I want to ask you a question have you ever asked god to come in your heart and to forgive you of your sins? If you have not yet I would love to show you how! Please post a comment or any questions after you read this. Holtville (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!

You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision
Wiki Eurovision Heart.svg You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Eurovision. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.
If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
I hope you accept! - Grk1011/Stephen (talk)

Baron d'Holbach problem

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Myrvin. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Sorry not to have caught up on this - I apologise please delete 'religion' and substitute "enthusiasms",%20Essay%20X,%20OF%20SUPERSTITION%20AND%20ENTHUSIASM Mea culpa

Fenton Robb (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Essays Moral, Political, and Literary (1742-1754)


THAT the corruption of the best things produces the worst, is grown into a maxim, and is commonly proved, among other instances, by the pernicious effects of superstition and corruptions of true religion.

Hume on Miracles

While I'm happy to AGF in this case, I should perhaps point out first that the reason the reading of the remark as ironic is standard is because a) Hume is a notoriously ironic writer. Both the Treatise and the Dialogues have literally layered irony and it's scattered throughout his other work as well (we could point to the remark on monkish virtues in the second inquiry, perhaps). Indeed between his writings on religion, as has been pointed out as well as elsewhere by Edward Craig in Hume on Religion there is an internal conflict between the remarks he uses to frame them, in so far as he introduces Natural History of Religion (an attack on revelation) by affirming his belief in the cosmological argument, he frames the section of the 1st Enquiry dealing with the cosmological argument with praise of the design argument and he closes the Dialogues (almost unanimously these days read as a criticism of the argument from design) by supporting the power of revealed testimony. Craig likens this to a man sawing off the pillars of a platform one by one at each point assuring those watching that the other pillars will hold it up fine. As to why this caution was necessary I notice (in looking through the article to see who inserted Iain King) that an earlier draft did mention the burning alive of atheists in Scotland when Hume was growing up - an ironist caution would be be ill recommended. b) While it is not difficult to see how an ironic reading of the remark would fit with the rest of Hume's philosophical views (in so far as they are coherent; a controversy largely missed in the wikipedia article) it is difficult to see how an ironic reading would. How would Hume's belief in the awareness of a miracle in ones own person be consistent with his prior definition of miracles? How would it connect with his scepticism regarding underdefined metaphysics? How would it be consistent with his Treatise scepticism regarding introspection? It would appear to paint Hume as some sort of crypto-charismatic. It is not hard to find (Mossner, Roderick Graham, Sandy Stewart) autobiographers who will disabuse any notion of this kind.

As far as citation goes it really depends what you feel would constitute appropriate citation. Mackie for example makes the remark the basis for the title of his own book; would Mackie be allowed to count? Craig, as I said, is quite clear on the ironist point but I can't give you a page reference as I don't have a copy to hand. O'Connor's book will discuss it somewhere but given Hume did not write his own cliff notes we only have a fairly uniform scholarly consensus and a relatively sensible inference from the difficulties of a non-ironist reading and the ease and consistency of an ironist one. I'm sure there is someone, somewhere of some plausible degree of scholastic credibility who would take the non-ironist reading (look at the legion of people who affirmed Hume's mouthpiece in the Dialogues to have been Cleanthes or even Demea prior to Newton Smith). Would you prefer a citation from Earman as an example of 'evidence against interest' or would O'Connor suffice? I don't have either Craig or Gaskin with me. It's relatively hard to find citations for things even hostile readers take to be obvious. Are there citations for the view that Swift does not really mean to commend the eating of children to his audience? Probably, but it might be hard to turn up a remark saying exactly that. (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Myrvin, I offer the following and am reverting the article on the presumption that one or other of the citations does meet your criteria. It is unfortunate if the end result does offend you as a believing Christian but the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that Hume did intend those remarks ironically.

"The standard interpretation of the passages from the First Enquiry quoted [which refers to a set of passages including the one under dispute, quoted in full on p142] above is that they are no more than exercises in michief-making and heavy-handed irony*. My alternative, or supplementary explanation owes much to work recently published by M.A. Stewart on the context in which Hume rewrote Book I of the Treatise of Human Nature for publication in the form of a series of essays". James Harris (2005) 'Hume's Use of the Rhetoric of Calvinism' p145 (Kail & Frasca-Spada eds) in Impression of Hume (The article goes on to claim that Hume made his writing purposefully ambiguous in order to avoid the charge of atheism which had hurt his academic career. As he states this is supplementary to the main reading which is the predominant interpretation (and as such the interpretation of first appeal, as it were, for wikipedia).

  • Harris offers in a footnote the following list to support his claim that this is the standard interpretation; Flew's (1961) Hume's Philosophy of Belief, Mackie (1982) The Miracle of Theism (1982) p29. The conclusion of 'Of Miracles is "of course... only a joke". Buckle's Hume's Enlightenment Trace (2001) p269-70 Hume intends the remark as no more than "an ironical allusion to the errors of religious 'enthusiasts'". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello Myrvin, the discussion about the limits of irony nd sarcasm is growing a little wild (due in part to me I think) but I hope we're geting closer to some results and in any case it's really interesting. Linguists have long been intrigued by irony and how it's read, marked and picked up in speech and in writing;: the actual signs that matter are sometimes all but invisible if you don't know the local code. Asians probably express irony and derision in quite different ways than Westerners. Anyway, let's recall that 1)working defintions about content in language, in sewmantics, often aren't fully logical. There is no absolutely watertight definition of irony, at least not of irony that works - and sometimes it's not that obvious precisely where the irony is. Explain a joke and you kill it. and 2) meaning in a leisurely spoken statement is never just about the lexical content of the words, but also about context, tone, emphasis, darting eyes, implied contrast and so on. So even if the contrasting thought or twist isn't possible to pin down under any of the words, seen as lexical units. it can still be there as an implicit counterpart, an allusion, something you'd have to say if you continued, a< metaphor, a kind of answer that's invited or forced by what you say ("Is it true that you have stopped beating your wife?" making it impossible to answer and still appear as a gentleman unless you repel the whole question). Strausszek (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right that 1) the wider public is a bit divergent or confused about what makes irony, or there are two-three different fields of meaning to the word, and 2)psycholinguists and semanticists have drifted, by a few steps, into a view that all sarcasm is a subset of irony. Neither group is an authority or right or reflective of the gist of any clear, steady usage. The trouble might come if you use those contentions as underpinnings in how to define irony, or in distinguishing irony and sarcasm. Because when it comes to what you're allowed to use in a WP article, some of the nice people here have stuck to the view, which is hardening into orthodoxy with many here, that, against what somebody has seen stated in such and such a book or "reliable source", you may never invoke what reality looks like, what the ground view obviously tells you and millions of other people, or what everyone who thinks half a minute knows to be the case, or what follows as implication in tne next step from two or three "sourced" statements. Because "that's original research", or synthesis. If the statement or thought you need to make to guard gainst misunderstanding is something so self-evident that nobody has ever needed to state it in print, then it sends you into trouble, at least if others are stubborn enough. Like, if you need to say or imply in an article that "modern rail traffic in Western Europe doesn't ever use steam locomotives except at museum railways", where would you find that stated in such a general form? Or "the letter 'a' and letters derived from it (German/Nordic ä, å etc) are written in longhand in a simplified form by most Europeans today". Everyone who lives in Europe and uses a European language with Roman script knows that's true, but it would be a bitch to find an inline citation for it. This kind of inaccuracy or lack of precision doesn't happen in paper encyclopaedias because the people who are writing there have authority in their own right, as scholars, and they risk something if they'd write bogus stuff and their peers would notice.
I've run into this several times on different subjects, people will use this loophole, or this methodic weakness, to introduce and keep in descriptions that are clearly biased, false or insufficient but where the statements or the clarification you needed can't easily and conclusively be brought in from any "reliable source" because they don't get stated in that way by scholars or whatever kind of reliable people. Likewise, "reliable" or "notable" is used a bit generically here: people will say that "NY Times is a reliable source but a single scientist is not" even if the cite they pick from the NY Times is from a lightweight piece, a clearly overstated editorial written in the heat of the moment or an interview which is insufficient when it comes to scrutiny of its facts and claims. Strausszek (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
With quotes on sarcasm, I think your 19th century quotes are on target and you're right that an essential factor in sarcasm is that it aims to be unanswerable, to put a full stop to a certain line of talking or thinking, and to do that it has to be biting and use rhetorical means (not necessarily irony). Sarcasm is a demonstration of power, the power of words.
I'll bring in more quotes along the specific sarcasm line if I find them, but here's the but: I'm not English, but from Sweden, (though fluent in English and familiar with British literature, movies, music and thinking etc - a big fan of British tv too, as I'm sure you've guessed). Some of the examples I'd find would be from Swedish writers and quoting them with refernce wouldn't really do the trick if it's a page reference we want. And making that kind of "mimic stage directions" within a dialogue, such as
  • '"I know what you're thinking" she said with an impish smile.
  • '"Don't try to bust me" he retorted, making me flinch.
  • '"Have you tried these cigarettes?" he said sounding like a host
are considered less good taste in literary prose here than in English-language literature. There's a long standing convention here that dialogue in literary prose should keep off that kind of overt directions to the reader linked directly to the spoken lines. Saying somebody did something after he had said xxx, or saying after a few lines of dialogue he "made me think of this or that memory"~or made Y infer something is considered clean, but sprinkling the dialogue with all sorts of adverbs, attributes and directions about how something was uttered - or received - is felt to be cheap, and that idea dies hard with most serious writers here. With the cop quote - it was from a thriller but an acclaimed one - I think the writers would have felt it was superfluous to add anything about how those lines were said: you're supposed to get it from the phrasing and the wider description of the scene. Which makes ity less decisive to quote here! Strausszek (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes I see the problem. Never mind, I shall continue. Myrvin (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Added two good ones from Crime and Punishment where non-ironic sarcasm is clearly intended. Put it into English from the 1983 Swedish translation which is excellent and I have no trouble finding the English expression even by one remove. I'm not sure what the printed Emnglish translations say but they can't be far from sarcasm at all. Strausszek (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, the one I can find has rudeness. Myrvin (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
It does have

"That is not quite true, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, especially at the present moment, when the news has come of Marfa Petrovna's legacy, which seems indeed very apropos, judging from the new tone you take to me," he added sarcastically.


"And your little surprise, aren't you going to show it to me?" Raskolnikov said, sarcastically.

Myrvin (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Translations aren't sacrosanct, they can be more or less good, in different ways. The one I'm quoting from is superb, and I'm not losing anything in putting a few lines into English. I've actually worked as a pro translator myself. At least with Svidrigaylov's rape threats, the tone Dostoevsky is describing him as taking would be extremely close to "sarcastic" and on the whole I'd say Dostoevsky knew lots about sarcasm, involved irony and self-irony and hyperbole. That's part of what makes C&P such a funny novel: both the the dialogue and the descriptions of what goes on are often hilarious, very vivid. Maybe that doesn't come through in some translations! Strausszek (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I enjoyed it too - but it's been a long time since I read it. Myrvin (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Harris' last reply (which I replied to) is making me suspect that part of the reason (esp. Anglo?) U.S. Americans are resistant to the idea of non-ironic sarcasm is that it seems to cut against their root ideas of how local society works, of how grown-up people engage in talk, of how power works in conversation and in deals mediated through talk. He says sarcasm that doesn't involve lifting the veil off some hidden, elaborate trickery can't exist, and that the act of exposing would always mean appeal to "how it ought to be" or the direct opposite which you the deceiver pretended to be the case. which creates an ironic contrast. If the dirty fact, and the deception, are already known, even if a bit dimly, why would you suffer it? It seems to imply a kind of cowboy image of how you talk and interact: everybody's equal and a real grown-up (real man?) is never in a situation where truth is being withheld through the very flow of talk, or by "talking about other things", where he can't mention some things without losing his ticket to be there, without seeming suddenly to be socially unacceptable. Real men speak the truth all the time if they want to. Has he never been in a situation where you can't state your mind, or say what you think you know, without being laughed at for non-rational reasons, or resisted first with new denial, explaining away and "you don't get it" and then with heavy anger? Where you simply have to smile and play along for some time or else leave the room/the company with a bang? Probably he has, but it seems to be a picture of how talk works that grates against his view of how human life works. Of course he's just one American, but I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the examples we find are English/European, and that it's a bit hard to find obvious instances of this kind of thing in let's say contemporary American tv/movie comedy.
In the same way, I don't recognize one bit of what he says about parents talk - with their children in the same room and listening or being part of the convo - being habitually gently ironic and speakjng over the heads of the kids, so that the answers they make to their children are generic, ironic or pseudo-explanations. School kids is the range he means, let's say nine to twelve years old. Sounds rather old fashioned to me, and we're not twenty years apart in age. But that could be his experience of how family life works. Strausszek (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your note regarding the Irony article. I have tried to explain that irony always involves opposites, that the meaning of whatever is ironically said or written is always its opposite. However, I am becoming very discouraged with Wikipedia and am no longer inclined to contribute due to the overwhelming vandalism.Lestrade (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Military encounter

I found this one years ago in a book about the Finnish army in retreat from Outer Karelia (between the Ladoga, the then Finnish--Soviet border and the arctic tundra) in the summer of 1944: A Major receives news that means he will have to plan a counter-attack, but both his boss and some other officers get involved a thick dispute about how to do it and who is in charge. I'll give you the gist of it - could have been Monty Python - and it really happened:

At the main defence line by the river they had always managed to repel the enemy, and the men were shining with confidence and will to fight. Then one day, the order for retreat arrived. The lower officers were indignant:

-Sir, we're not moving anywhere from here. It's excellent positions and we still haven't had a chance to fight for real.

Major Backström had to explain:

-The bigger picture has changed and if we stay jhere, the enemy will soon be in our back. That's why we have to retreat.

That seemed decisive, and during the night the Finnish batallion broke camp and began moving west. The Russians followed within the next two days when they found out; they were now superior in number but their attacks were still repelled. They only managed to gain a footing at one strategic spot by a powerline, where they dug themselves down.

When the note about this reached the command station, Backström was hosting his boss, a lieutenant colonel from the frontier HQ. The colonel decided this was part of his job, and declared:

-Your reserve company will move at once and make an assault straight at the heart of the lost post by the powerline.

Backström replied: -Colonel, it's up to me to order my men isn't it, Sir? I don't need that kind of advice over my head, thank you".

The angered colonel kicked a stool and erupted: "I ORDER!"

"You just order as much as you like"

The major felt it would be wiser to make some other kind of maneuver because the Russians would expect a head-on attack at just that point, the one they had taken. But before he had time to explain, the officer of a heavy-duty grenadier unit entered the cabin and in turn was pulled into the fight. The colonel:

-The Captain is drunk, and I have no doubt your entire company is.

The captain was taken aback by the rude welcome, but replied:

-I demand an instant recant of that from you, Colonel. No one has been drinking and I wouldn't even have come here if I hadn't been called for!

The colonel looked as if he was building up to a fresh, hot explosion, but the field officer, who had been watching, ventured to clear the air:

-Now that's enough bollocks, let's get on with the real business.

The colonel, drawing his revolver, yelled at the top of his voice:

-It's me giving orders here, the captain will just shut up!!

The field officer, unflinchingly cool:

-Put away that gun or I'll draw my own. I can inform you I hold the title of grand master of pistol shooting, Colonel.

The colonel sized it up and slowly returned to normal face colour. As silence fell, Backström put in the sarcastic question:

"Is there anything more edifying to add here?"

After some further silence, he added:

"If not, I'm going off to my men." Strausszek (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we go

I've clocked about 150 edits on the Irony talk page over the last week or so, without making a single edit to the article. Don't intend to either until we have some sort of clarity. It's rare even on WP to get this kind of chance to discuss a subject in depth and in such a stimulating way. Keep on! Strausszek (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Born again (Christianity)

Just wanted to say thanks for working on the criticism section and adding sources, notable claims and the names of people who have made them! I've been wanting to do so myself but never have time for a good library trip, and my google-fu is weak (I tried finding sources for some of this article earlier and gave up). Anyway, your time is much appreciated!

-- Joren (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bell's Theorem and Caroline Thompson

Well, nor is the question about your interpretation of an obscure paper by fringe academic (not even a physicist). Fair enough, it has managed its way into a peer-reviewed journal, but these views are really only held by a tiny minority of physicists. We are well aware of Bell loopholes, but have moved past the stage where there is any serious doubt about LHV theories - the rich literature wich actually investigates Bell nonlocality vastly outweighs the reports from these detractors. One look at her website provides the tell-tale marks of the solitary mad scientist; we might as well say there are grave doubts as to the value of Pi, as plenty of websites claim. In short, it's unfair for Wikipedia to cite her views as representative of "some" physicists, rather than a small group at the fringes. Even the Wikipedia article on Bell test loopholes has only her paper to cite in defense of LHV theories!

--Sabri Al-Safi (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you miss the point. You added to something from a cited text. You obviously know (more than me) that she never said what you added. As far as I know you are correct about the numbers. So what you need to do is find another quote to say what you want to say. And please don't get so angry. Assume WP:Good Faith Myrvin (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
How about: "Although no experiment had been conducted in which every loophole has been closed, most physicists accept that Bell's inequality has been violated." M Kumar Quantum p. 350. Maybe not as strong as you want, but it is in favour. Myrvin (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Done it. Myrvin (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across angry. I don't think she even said what was originally cited in the first place, bar that there are "a few explanations [of EPR] that appear to be entirely realistic". I'm inexperienced as a Wikipedia editor but I really would like to clean up some of the articles involving Bell's Theorem and Nonlocality - a lot of the things stated as fact are one-sided views of a proportion of academics, and many things are presented in different ways by different people (leading to inconsistencies). Anyway, I'm happy with what the article says now. --Sabri Al-Safi (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Spurious history

Nice work in resolving this. Truly, my profound thanks. As Hans Adler says: it's the smoking gun. (Whew, glad this one's over!) Bill Wvbailey (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


I see you have a problem with Norton AntiVirus downloading large files. I would like to tell you can upgrade for FREE if your subscription is STILL valid and you can support the 2011 version.

Follow these steps to upgrade:

  1. . Download NAV2011] as well as the Norton Removal tool]
  2. . Disconnect your internet.
  3. . Uninstall Norton AntiVirus 2006. Reboot.
  4. . Run the Norton Removal tool at least three times rebooting between each go.
  5. . Install Norton AntiVirus 2011 from the file you downloaded in step 1.

If you have ANY problems with the upgrading, leave me a message on my talk page or visit the norton forums. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Take up our quarrel with the foe: / To you from failing hands we throw / The torch; be yours to hold it high. 01:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I eventually worked out how to do that from Norton's site. It was a friend's machine, and it seems to be working OK now. But for a while, it was eating up all his disc space several times a day. Myrvin (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


Just an FYI, I started a thread at the content noticeboard about Morecambe and Wise. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look


I have a draft of a rewrite that might be helpful. Please give me some feedback on:


ThanksP0M (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"This is an important part of her ideology"

Do you have evidence for this assertion? --John (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Gosh! I don't know where you were in the 1980s, but in the UK we all knew that Maggie's stance on SA was considered by her to be important. Mind you, as with most politicians, so was anything she had a policy on. I never fully understood why it seemed so important, but she took a lot of stick about it from both home and abroad. If it wasn't important to her view of the world, she would have caved in about it. And eventually she did relent a little as the article Premiership of Margaret Thatcher makes clear. This assertion is not in the article, but it could be. Would need a citation of course. Myrvin (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
This [1] suggests she was worried about communism. Myrvin (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
This [2] suggests that the "ideological rationale" was rooted in Britain's economic interest. (£3billion in direct investements etc.) Myrvin (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
This [3] suggests that Denis had business interests in SA. Also that Mrs T considered white SA to be Christian and capitalist. Myrvin (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
(No need for a bulletpoint)I spent most of the 1980s living in the Scotland, but that is not relevant here as we work off a neutral reading of the reliable sources. I'm not seeing "This is an important part of her ideology" or anything like it from these sources I'm afraid. Is it your own interpretation of the sources? That isn't allowed, you know. --John (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If anti-communism and democracy and Christianity weren't part of her ideology, then I guess we differ in what we think the word means. Anyway, it's not in the text. You are objecting to my reason for expanding on your precis. I hear they really hated her in Scotland - I bet you could find sources for that. Myrvin (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I maybe could, but the onus lies on you to do so as it you who wish to add the material to the article. I suggest you find such a source that actually says what you wish the article to say, then bring it to talk and we can see what we can do. What individual editors think isn't really relevant here. Cheers. --John (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
That's what I always try to do, but I think it would be better in the Premiership article. My original edits here were a response to a critic who said that SA was missed out. It is important - ideologically or not. Myrvin (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to have your attention on this

I'd like to have your attention on Talk:Uncertainty principle. I intend to put back a paragraph that you deleted in May, after modifying it, of course. But before doing that, it'll be good to know a detailed reason for which it was deleted. Adrien (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Born again (Christianity), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


I don't know how I missed the changes. Usually I look at all changes and so I ought to have spotted the big deletions. I think one deletion was innocently motivated, and probably indicates that I did not write clearly enough to begin with. The other deletion was replaced with what to me seems simply wrong. I hope we can work together to get something that is both correct and also clear enough for the general reader. Thanks.P0M (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All English churches that pre-date the reformation are catholic in origin

I have added a new section to Lincoln Cathedral's talk page where we can discuss the statement of a very general nature, which Woodseats44 (talk) has repeatedly added to the summary statement at the top of Lincoln Cathedral: "Like all medieval buildings that are now cathedrals of England, Lincoln Cathedral is Roman Catholic in origin as it predates the Reformation." before making any further changes.—GrahamSmith (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the word "Catholic" from the [Second Act of Dissolution] article. It usedto say "It provided for the dissolution of 552 Catholic monasteries and houses" Same problem.Myrvin (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In Appreciation

I would like to express my appreciation for your contribution to the Mother Church article. Too often many Wikipedia users delete other peoples contributions in articles because of a perceived error or misplacement of some sort. You on the other hand did the harder task of rewriting and improving the whole article without unnecessary drastic oversimplifications. Thank you once again. Major Torp (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

HELP WOULD BE NEEDED. The article Gentry is under rapid fire. In the English speaking world the the terms Gentry and Landed Gentry is mostly seen as the same thing. Citing the gentry article the "The idea of gentry in the continental sense of "noblesse" is extinct in common parlance in England". But now we are talking about Gentry in the wider continental sense of "gentil", people of good social position connected to landed estates of long descent. The problem it is claimed is the copious amount of illustrations in the article is just one to many. I claim the the subject in question must have more latitude than e.g. the article Bird where there already exists sub-articles. It is understandable that there are not too many illustrations in the article List of extinct birds as there are no existing visual representations of all extinct birds. However it has many sub-articles (ex. Flightless bird for the Dodo ) that can portion out any further space requirement . This is not the case with the article Gentry which also includes subject matters such as the social sciences and the humanities. Major Torp (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


This picture clearly belongs on the Sarcasm page because it is an excellent example of someone making a sarcastic facial expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevLynch2012 (talkcontribs) 17:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't and it isn't. It has been removed several times by different editors. I'm sorry but you are wrong. Give it up. Myrvin (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm Edit

Listen Myrvin, you can't look at this picture and tell me that this person doesn't have a sarcastic look on their face. Please stop removing the picture because it belongs on the page. I would like for you to answer this question: Even if it doesn't belong, is anyone suffering from it being up there? If you have a legitimate argument to why it doesn't belong, please let me know. Otherwise, please stop taking it down. (talk 16:12, 1

I'm sorry you are so obsessed with this picture. I wonder if it is of you. It hurts because it has nothing to do with sarcasm and so doesn't belong on the page. It looks like someone who has a quizzical or surprised expression, not sarcastic - or, maycbe, sayin "what do you think about that?". What is he being sarcastic about - the Mister Softie? I don't think you understand what a sarcastic expression is - and I'm not sure I do either. Whatever it is, this isn't it. Why is it sharp, cutting, or bitter? How can it be ironic? Anyway, nobody else agrees with you - give it up. We shall all remove it as soon as we see it. Myrvin (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Greek tragedy

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#The article "Greek tragedy" is a horrible mess. The article seems to have been auto-translated from it.Wikipedia, but even given that, there are issues of content. The Greek section at tragedy does no harm, and one solution would be to simply restore the article to its original state as a redirect. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that's what might have happened. I'm doing my best to rewrite it. Myrvin (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've had a good go, and stopped for a while. See what you think. Myrvin (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm editing dispute

Err... it really is unfortunate that someone who claims to have all this education you do on your talk page doesn't understand the basic, widespread meaning of sarcasm. That you want to rub off flawed meanings on others is even more unfortunate. As I have far too much to do as opposed to sit around bickering over it with you, your flawed meaning will end up remaining on Wikipedia it appears. And judging by some of the above edits, I would ponder my behavior and whether I'm exercising article ownership on the "sarcasm" page if I were you. Just some things to think about. Also, no, none of the above of what I said was sarcasm. Judging by your definition on the article's page, I'm assuming you think it is. AmericanDad86 (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for at least adding the alternate somewhere on the page. Sorry if I was a bit too vehement over the issue. It's just that every time I've heard this word used, the person simply didn't mean what they say. I've never heard it use for mere harsh ridicule. I'll move on. Happy editing! AmericanDad86 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Myrvin (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schlegel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Event (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scientology may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • pp=188, 263–265}}</ref> and ''The Encyclopedic Sourcebook of UFO Religions'' by [[James R. Lewis (scholar)|James R.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

edits to the identity of the first cause

I honestly didn't expect my little addition to stay. So when I found it gone, I wasn't surprised. What surprised me was that it had been replaced by a different paragraph to the same effect. Thank you for taking my attempt at contribution seriously.

Your reason for deleting my addition as it had been was "seems to be own research. You need another citation apart from the translation." Actually, it wasn't my own research. I learned that from reading the work of one Edward Feser, author of The Last Superstition and Aquinas, among other works. However, since Feser was writing about Aquinas, I figured it would be better to cite Aquinas' work directly, so I referenced the Summa Contra Gentiles itself. Is that not proper Wikipedia etiquette? All the previous changes I've made on this site have been corrections of innocuous spelling errors on relatively obscure pages, so for all I know sources from the 1200's could be too old for use.

Or was the problem that I used a translation of the SCG? Or an internet translation? Or was it just that I put the translator's name on the citation instead of Aquinas'?

I'm sorry if this is a lot of questions, it's just that I like getting the info straight from the source's mouth (Aquinas) rather than second-hand (eg, Feser or Ganssle).

If you find the time, please answer. If you don't, that's alright, you've already put more effort into this than I had hoped anyone would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello I think that the section was short of someone saying that the First Cause is God. It's not something I agree with, but I think it needed to be said there. I suggest you read this [4] to clarify the problem of what appeared to be your analysis of what Aquinas (or the translater) wrote. Good Luck. Myrvin (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friedrich Schlegel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Indented line