| Revision as of 05:03, 22 February 2006 editFirsfron (talk | contribs)Administrators77,076 edits →User page← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:54, 22 February 2006 edit undoFrys104 (talk | contribs)85 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Leave my page alone ..... now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...... Bashas' has been around a long time, an Arizona tradition. Please leave it ALONE! ..... Thank you for your cooperation at this time. THE LOGOS ARE NOT TO BE COPIED ANY FORM OR CHANGED. | |||
| ==Re: Broadcast network article== | |||
| The reason I did the renaming is | |||
| 1. To go with the ] and ] articles. | |||
| 2. Because all television is broadcast in one way or another (whether it's cable, satellite, or using an antenna), and this article is really talking about over-the air/terrestrial television. | |||
| Thank you, Bashas' | |||
| Now that you mention it, "List of United States over-the-air television networks" sounds a bit better, so I'll let you move it to that if you want to. | |||
| Eddie Basha, Sr. | |||
| And on the subject of where I'm from, I'm from Illinois. --] ] ] 00:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| CEO & Executive Financial Officer | |||
| :Never mind, I'll just move it myself. --] ] ] 00:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==sphericity of Pallas== | |||
| I already thought I was doing too much in adding a third column. A fourth column (although I agree it's appropriate for the zettagram range only) would be almost too much. But anyway, are you sure Pallas isn't about as spherical as Pluto? I had thought the formation history of Pallas was much like Ceres, and very unlike that of Vesta, which is obviously a central splinter of a massive metallic object. --] ] 07:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Arkuat/Eric, | |||
| :Concerning minor planet Pallas: it is typically depicted as non-spherical, and roughly football-shaped (N. American football, obviously). Misplaced Pages lists its dimensions as 570×525×482 km, which is egg-shaped rather than spherical. Ceres is the only asteroid which is known to be round. Cheers!--] 13:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the info, Firsfron. I was too sleepy when I made that edit, and I've reverted it since. --] ] 02:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==vfd nomination== | |||
| I've fixed the nomination of ] for you. In future if you follow the online instructions at ] you shouldn't go wrong. -- ] | ] 21:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :PS I added something new to your user page. Hope you don't mind. -- ] | ] 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I certainly DON'T mind. Looks great! :)--] 21:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ranking of solar system bodies == | |||
| Hi. I thought our discussions on ] were getting a bit voluminous and offtopic, so I'll comment here. | |||
| You seem genuinely surprised by my reaction to your remarks, so I'd like to explain myself. This will get pretty verbose, and pretty critical of you, so thanks in advance for reading it all. | |||
| Allow me to dissect your remark that prompted my "assume for one minute that I'm not an idiot" comment: | |||
| :''Hmmm. Yes. I believe you said that, once or twice. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ;) | |||
| I kept saying it precisely because you never addressed my concerns about the list's exhaustiveness. | |||
| :''Exhaustive: from Dictionary.com : very thorough; exhaustively complete.'' | |||
| If you treat someone as though they don't know the definition of the word "exhaustive" then you can't be terribly surprised when they feel insulted; especially when the definition is as lame and self-referential as this one. | |||
| :''I'm not exactly sure how you think this list of objects could be more thorough or complete.'' | |||
| By including the objects that are currently not included. | |||
| :''If you think the list is incomplete, I wonder why you don't add the information you have (with suitable citation, of course).'' | |||
| Because it's an enormous list that grows weekly. It would require a level of effort and commitment that I don't have the time or inclination to make. | |||
| :''If it's just that you believe that more objects exist out there, yet undiscovered, I think I already addressed that: there's always the potential for larger objects (than Mercury or Jupiter) to exist, but we haven't found any, in the last three hundred years. And even if we do, it's really not too hard to update the list. Meanwhile, these are the largest objects known to exist, outside of fringe speculation and conjecture. If you're basing your objection to rank based on speculation, I don't know what to tell you: I've taken a look at your edits on other pages, and they seemed really sound, so your argument here seems quite puzzling.'' | |||
| This part was quite frustrating. You assume that I'm making a lame argument, and expend half a dozen sentences pounding a strawman to death, despite the fact that I already refuted the argument myself, calling it "spurious". This culminates in the rather condescending statement "your edits on other pages...seemed really sound" (which, at this point, just reads like "look how open-minded I'm being") and that "your argument here seems quite puzzling", even though I have already stated that this is quite emphatically ''not'' my argument. | |||
| So, in summary, you spent fully three-quarters of your remarks using rhetoric to demolish arguments that I wasn't even making, in a manner that made me appear foolish, rather than trying to reach a consensus or compromise. | |||
| This is not usenet. There's no need to quote the other person's remarks, because they are right there on the same page; and the objective is not to win arguments, but to build a good encyclopedia. | |||
| No hard feelings. I just didn't want to leave you puzzled as to why I reacted the way I did (rightly or wrongly). --] 21:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Frankly, P3, I ''am'' a little puzzled. The sentence about 'not knowing the meaning of the word' is nothing more than a ''The Princess Bride'' quote. I'm sorry if it offended you; in some on-line circles, PB quotations are really common and instantly recognizable, and I really regret now that you took offense to it. My point was simply to get us on the same page about the word "exhaustive": the list can ''never'' be complete, so any argument based on 'we can't rank the list because the list isn't complete' just doesn't make sense to me. The same argument would make it impossible to say that (say) Jupiter is the second largest body in the Solar System, because ''something bigger'' might ''be out there''. | |||
| ::I'm not exactly certain why you'd say something, then later claim it was a spurious argument, and then criticize me for talking about it. Either it's your opinion, or it's not, but it can't really be ''both''. This is one more thing which causes me to write that your stance on this issue puzzles me. This is also one more reason why I felt it ''was'' important to quote you directly, as you freely admit you've changed your argument. In which case, it was impossible NOT to quote you directly when responding to you, whether this is Usenet, Misplaced Pages, or anywhere else. | |||
| ::Frankly, there already exists a more or less complete list of minor planets on Misplaced Pages, so I'm not sure why you want this other list to be "exhaustive" (thus in effect duplicating two Misplaced Pages lists): it's a listing of heavenly bodies in order of size, not a complete list of minor planets. | |||
| ::You include with your latest comment some stuff about how I think your argument is ''lame'' (I don't), how I use ''rhetoric'' (not sure when I did that, but I apologize anyway), ''made appear foolish'' (which wasn't my intent, and I don't think is the case anyway), ''made the rather condescending statement "your edits on other pages...seemed really sound"'' (which was of course meant as a compliment, but was somehow taken by you as a veiled insult), etc, etc. There is more stuff, about how I'm not trying to build a better encyclopedia, and am only interested in winning arguments, but in point of fact, the list you desire already exists here on Misplaced Pages, and in my years of editing Misplaced Pages articles, you're the first person I've ever 'argued' with (although I'm not certain how complimenting your edits to Misplaced Pages articles, making sure I didn't change anything after you deleted my additions to the article in question, etc, constitutes an "argument"). | |||
| ::I really hope that there ''are'', as you say, 'no hard feelings', but I suspect there ''are'', after all you've said in your message tonight. I don't want there to be any.--] 02:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Ok, I had started another point-for-point rebuttal, but I just find it extraordinarily frustrating to discuss this issue with you, so I give up. Let's just put this behind us and move forward. I think we both just want what's best for Misplaced Pages. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. --] 14:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm ''so'' glad you could be the ''bigger person'', P3. I look forward to reading your future contributions on Misplaced Pages, and agree we both want what's best for Misplaced Pages.--] 21:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Why stop at 15 === | |||
| Hi. You recently said this: | |||
| :''I certainly also agree with you that the ranking ceases to be useful after a certain point, but strongly disagree at where that point has, IMHO, arbitrarily been placed. There were less than 40 rankings on the list, and the majority were removed because the rankings 'were not useful' or something, based on the perception that the list was not accurate at its lower end.'' | |||
| Here is the reasoning I gave on the Talk page when I made that edit: | |||
| :''I have started by removing the ranks after Europa, since the relative ordering of Triton and UB313 are not known.'' | |||
| Specifically, Triton's radius is given as 1353.4 km, while 2003 UB313's radius is 1195-1500 km. Hence, we don't know which body should be #16. That's why I stopped at #15. --] 18:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Seasonally-described dates == | |||
| On ], you added information describing the date when the album was recorded, "Autumn 1997 - Early 1998". I was wondering if you could please clarify the ambiguity here – Autumn could mean approx March to June, or approx September to November, as seasons in the Northern- and Southern- hemispheres occur at opposite times if the year. Cheers --] 10:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Qirex, | |||
| :The band themselves mentioned the recording of the first songs of "Flowers" ("Dr. Sun" and "Captain Nemo") as occurring in "Autumn of 1997"... as this is 'their' Autumn, that would of course be late in the year: September or so. I don't see much ambiguity, because the band is clearly based in the Northern Hemisphere and always has been, and the quoted material comes from the European "Flowers" booklet, but if you feel it's confusing, do clarify it. :)--] 05:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for explaining, and yes it does make good sense, but all the same I'll edit the article. The reason I saw it as being ambiguous was that I didn't know where the information came from; had it come from secondary sources, it may have been what someone said in Australia or South America or something. Also, someone reading from the Southern hemisphere may not think too carefully and just assume that autumn refers to earlier in the year. Of course, I do recognise this is all quite trivial, so thank you for indulging me without poking fun :) --] 11:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == "Abu Ghraib edit" == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I was pretty confused by this message showing up on my talk page, until I noticed that it showed up because you edited (accidentally, I am assuming!) Exir's welcome template instead of someone's talk page. | |||
| This would mean a lot of people will be affected by that and are probably kinda confused as well. :) | |||
| Just thought you'd appreciate the headsup. | |||
| -] 08:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==User page== | |||
| Your User page has some kind if graphics glitch on it, or someone just vandalised it. ] 05:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the heads-up. The page renders fine in some broswers, but was really glitchy in others. I've since adjusted it.--] 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:54, 22 February 2006
Leave my page alone ..... now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...... Bashas' has been around a long time, an Arizona tradition. Please leave it ALONE! ..... Thank you for your cooperation at this time. THE LOGOS ARE NOT TO BE COPIED ANY FORM OR CHANGED.
Thank you, Bashas'
Eddie Basha, Sr. CEO & Executive Financial Officer