User talk:Kurtan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Kurtan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Tomchiukc 16:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ke (unit)

Please read my comment at the talk page of Ke (unit). You need to double check your source of information. -- Tomchiukc 16:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metric time

If you can take a look at Metric time, I changed some of your edits, and you might want to see its discussion page on why, and then rewrite back in some things. (Or you might be happy with the way it is now.) FireWorks 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion of Kurds before islamization

Hi, Kurtan, I see you started the article Yazdanism. There is a debate on religion of the Kurds before islamization in the talk:Kurdish people. I would appreciate if you take a look at that. Thanks. Jalalarbil 08:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did - after making substantial changes on the Swedish one and found nothing on Yazdanism at the en.wiki. Now having been confronted by the NN-rules on some other articles that I started (related to tired light), I think I have to check my source for notability. I also think Ali has a few points correct that have been wrongly added to my original "posting". Sorry, I haven't watched "my baby" duly. Yazdanism seems to be an academic invention to classify and relate Kurdish religious practise. And it does not exclude zoroastric influence. As for the Sabeans, I think it is a proponent's contribution and wish to relate here ( and the German wiki-link may be wrong). Kurtan 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freak wave

Hi, thanks for your recent edit at Freak wave.

I've concerned that you may have made a mistake, though, as the article that you linked to does not have the title that you claim it has, and does not seem to be about water waves at all.

I searched the site you linked to for the link to the correct article, but could not find one.

I don't suppose you could take a look and figure out what went wrong?

Thanks!

Ruakh 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the article and fixed the link. Thanks again for your edit. :-) Ruakh 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletion

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Olav Kallenberg, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Olav Kallenberg. You may remove the {{dated prod}} template, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocene Calendar

I don't think I reverted your text. From comparison of changes it appears that I meant that one can't mix two systems (even if the numbers are the same) on the same column of a table. Jclerman 14:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jomon Era count

your addition of the Jomon Era count to Japanese era names was uncited. i have no intention of removing the section but i was hoping you might be able to provide a source for further research. Some thing 19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content merger suggested

If there is specific content you wish to see included at Wikipedia from the previous versions of Models of the universe, please include it a physical cosmology. Thanks. ScienceApologist 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You must discuss matters. If you do not, there can be no consensus. The table has been included at cosmology. The original research text has to go from Wikipedia. Please note that the AfD was ruled "no consensus" and lacked expert input. Moreover, AfD votes do not mean that articles cannot be redirected, and this one is redundant to other articles. If you disagree, you may ask for a third opinion or start an request for comment. ScienceApologist 21:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussions requires time and so do checking AfD:s. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Models the verdict "no consensus" does not rhyme with my sense of justice. Cannot tell of expert input, but my tentative expert input would have been "Keep" without the OR parts. That would only slightly have changed the result to one for deletion out of 12 ballots cast. It is OK "to fight against cranks and pseudoscience", but there must be room also for viable protoscience. Viable or not are for the sages to tell if rules are flexible. Kurtan 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I never bought the allowing time argument. It only works when you are in a discussion. Dragging feet on article development tends to stifle improvement which I'm very much against. In other words, I do not buy as a rationale for reverting "the previous editor didn't allow the article to be in a bad state for enough time". Your point about protoscience is also quixotic. How do you determine what is protoscience and what is pseudoscience? I use Wikipedia guidelines (in particular WP:FRINGE). It was clear to me that the article in question was mostly original research and while the table is a clever idea and there certainly were things worth keeping there, the overall organizations and subjective essay nature of the article meant that there was little worth saving. Everyone else who has looked at the article since then has agreed with me. I hope you can understand why. Nevertheless, I encourage you to help out at cosmology where the table in an edited form now resides. ScienceApologist 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)