User talk:Levi P.

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

–  Sango  123    (e)  23:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Lobster fish
Hey there.

Remember when Nohat wrote "The true meaning of a word is not something that is written down in a book"?

Check out Talk:Dutch language, where Nohat writes "You are directly contradicting what the dictionary says. If a dictionary says a word means something, then it prima facie means that thing, and unless you have some kind of competent and reliable source that says otherwise, your claims are patently wrong."

I agree with a good part of the argument that Nohat makes at that page. But I found this dictionary statement curiously amusing.

President Lethe 00:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (Sorry I originally accidentally put this message on your User page, rather than your Talk page.) Also, more from Nohat at the aforementioned page: "English dictionaries are" "reliable sources". — President Lethe 00:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey President Lethe. Nice to hear from you. I'm sure you will not be surprised to hear that I read Nohat's newfound endorsement of dictionaries with pleasure, consternation and, like you, not a small bit of amusement. But hey, we are all allowed to reevaluate even our most tightly held convictions, and in doing so change our stances on the most controversial of subjects.  I have no doubt his recent epiphany will lead to his leading the charge to "narrow" the definition used in the article so as to conform to the dictionary.  In fact, I will begin holding my breath...now! Levi P. 06:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing
Just be careful to log in when you edit articles, especially ones that may be contested to some degree. This will give your edits better credibility, since IP edits are, unfortunately, treated with suspicion at times.--MONGO 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries are important, as it helps those doing what is called Recent Changes patrol. I wouldn't worry about it though and there is no way to correct the lack of any edit summary once you hit the save button. It's not a big deal. Keep up the good work.--MONGO 03:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Steven Jones
I'll have a look again. I may have been influenced by the fact that you are editing as an anon; let me have another look and I'll get back to you. --Guinnog 22:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The intro isn't bad but I think it should include something that indicates that some scholars (if not practically all of them) disagree with the contents of his paper as well and not only raise issues with it not being peer reviewed.--Sloane 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfect and you can cite the chronicle of higher education article.--Sloane 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did...
...quote my source. Check the sumbit comments. Maury 12:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Harold Bloom
About his position at NYU, I think they're saying "Professor" is a nominal title. As in Professor emeritus. Though I am only somewhat sure of this, I will check later. I only responded here because "he is or he isn't" (or whatever it was) seems too general unless you knew for sure, and it would be helpful (if you knew for sure) to confirm if he is. So I wonder, do you know? -Bordello 13:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I missing something? If NYU says he holds a position, why do we need to qualify it? From looking at the talk page it looks like it has been sourced that he holds a position at NYU. It looks like an editor has been arguing that the source should be ignored for some reason. What is the problem? ( I don't mean to be short, I am confused.) Levi P. 19:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found anything yet contrary to what you said and your source. I just suspected those commenters were in the know. -Bordello 10:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did some more research as well, and have been unable to find anything which contradicts the numerous reputable sources that say he holds a position there. In fact, everything I can find, from Bloom's books to NY Times articles to the NYU website, all say he holds a Berg Prof. The only person (thus far) saying otherwise is the one editor who strongly argues against it, but adduces no proof to back it up. Let me know if you discover anything. Cheers. Levi P. 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(I copied my responses from Bordello's talk page) Levi P. 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

barret fox link
Can you give me the ref link? I can add it. In general since it's a biographical article, per policy nothing with a negative connotation should really go in even for a minute without sourcing. rootology (T) 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just posted on the barrett talk page, we can sort it out there, it'll be easier. rootology (T) 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

UBL Intro
You said: ''Hi TGFTS, I just wanted to drop a note letting you know that it is not my intention to edit war with you over the intro. I really don't think that statement belongs in the there and, as I respect your edits and suggestions, I'm hoping we can find some common ground ( perhaps adding further explanation and putting it somewhere else within the article?). Frankly, I think having that sentence in the intro is unencyclopedic and misleading. Beyond that I doubt its veracity ( but besides all that I Love It!). Levi P. 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)'''


 * This issue has been discussed in talk for several years. I do not proclaim that OBL is innocent, but the truth is that OBL is not publicly officially wanted for the 9/11 attacks.  This is about Wikipedia guidelines, not about beliefs.  See this diff for more information.
 * -- That Guy, From That Show! 08:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: ''I'm not concerned with whether you think he is innocent or not; I'm concerned that the assertions contained within that sentence be sourced and put in the appropriate section within the article. Levi P. 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)''


 * I like your rewrite of that part here. It is more precise and I support that change.
 * Good work, -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: ''I'm glad we were able to come to a compromise that, I think, improved the article. Hopefully we can work together in the future on other issues dealing with 9/11, especially since so many of the disputes seem needlessly contentious. Cheers Levi P. 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.- Oh, I did get a little "cranky". I didn't really mean to direct that at you, it was more directed toward Pedant and his sarcastic shouting. Levi P.''


 * I'm pleased as well, there appears to be a consensus about the introduction. It took 5 years to accomplish that and hopefully we can all work well together and get the rest of the article in shape in time so it will be included on the Wikipedia CD.
 * -- That Guy, From That Show! 04:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Redwood National and State Parks
Yeah, the article was very basic, only a paragraph or two, and a complaint was made about how crummy it was, so I took it under my wing and with some help of course, got it to Featured level. Please add anything, or make corrections as you see fit. Just so long as we can reference the material so we don't get called on violating original research. Thanks again.--MONGO 03:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Burying the hatchet
I appreciate your gesture. For good order, my stance has always been simply to take the available information seriously. It is the information, not my stance, that has changed. Yes, happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

engineers language
I'm going to change it to say a variety--a variety, but not all, since the old way in English implies "all". · XP  · 04:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jones
My goal really was purely a linguistic one, as the wording seemed to indicate unilaterally. However, I'm not going to fight a mob mentality that seems determined to push a non-expert POV onto something. I still say using such closed wording is a POV violation as it means literally "all", which is unprovable. · XP  · 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on everything being reread, it appears I don't have a leg to stand on for the language, so I'm bowing out of that. Thanks for being civil. For what its worth, in general on all this, I don't buy into the conspiracy. A dozen true patriots would have leaked it if it were true, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al would be in shackles and jail (if not facing a firing squad for high treason and epic mass murder) were it true. · XP  · 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try as time permits, but seems these days like each week I have less and less... · XP  · 18:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OBL worldwide perception article AFD
You might be interested in this Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden
 * Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)