User talk:Silly rabbit/Archive 5

Inertia
Regarding this edit. Yes, thanks for correcting me there. It was at least partially my error, and I should have paid closer attention to what I was doing. My sole focus at the time of the edit was to restate the sentence in a way that the "most commonly defined" bit would not require attribution. However, I took at face value the earlier sentence, which asserted that inertia was defined via the first law [4]. Thanks for catching it. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging. I also suggest the Definition 3 quote should be from the latest English translation, Cohen & Whitman 1999, which I recall I did once post up [in the article] a while ago. --Logicus (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Logicus"

Creation according to Genesis
Thanks. I reinstated the (new) link, but have doubts - it's all about the authorship of Deuteronomy, and only by inference about Genesis. Plus it's stiff going - tho Student is probably even stiffer. I'll look for something better than either. PiCo (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Current Events Barnstar

 * Thanks. But I don't think I deserve it, considering I have never actually edited the article in question.  Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?  ;-) Silly rabbit (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Your edits to Fidel Castro immediately before today's elections (in particular, this one) were quite helpful to the ad hoc "project" that has been working on a number of Cuba-related articles in a very short amount of time.  I'm trying to recognize those who've made key edits in the last week or so to related articles. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Clearly u have skills as an editor. But I had looked through the history of the talk and the article and I realized that every idea I have ever been thought, read, or figured out had been either strategically avoided or outright rejected. And in the very beginning I didn't have much confidence I could just as well express myself with facts as I could engage in political engineering. I really did feel that you had bullied others like me and that my only option was to bully back. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
... For fixing that warning. Lost my Internet connection for a moment at the exactly the wrong moment. :-) FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know how it&^(@$^#.. NO CARRIER

polynomial ring
I appreciate your edit on polynomial ring. However I do not understand why you changed minus '&minus;' into dash '-'. Bo Jacoby (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for catching this twice! I restored your fix. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiPolicy on Deletion
"If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can do the following things: 1. Remove the prod tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion. 2. While you're editing the article anyway, please consider improving it, especially to address the concerns given as a reason for deletion."

Mr. Silly Rabbit you were quite wrong according to Wikipolicy to put back the prod tag and tell me I couldn't remove it but to keep editing. This is in regards to vectors (physical). --Firefly322 (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is on WP:AfD now. Also, you failed to explain the removal of the tag.  Nor is it clear whether you removed the tag or not.  Instead you moved it to the bottom of the page, and wrote a signed comment underneath it in the article.  I'm not certain what to make of that, but I'm sure AfD will straighten things out. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)