User talk:Pacman

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Warhammer is probably not the best topic to make articles on here. Try again.--Elamdri 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

In retrospect, you are of course welcome to make a article about warhammer itself, but don't make many tiny offshoot articles on it, Ok?--Elamdri 06:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
With regards to tiny articles, my opinion is that somebody has to start somewhere. If I find a topic that does not yet have a proper article, surely it's better to open it with a few lines then and there. It can then be marked as a stub and people can come along and flesh it out later. --Pacman 06:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Right, right, but don't make a tiny article about one specific part of the warhammer universe, this isn't a warhammer wiki. Make a warhammer page in general and then expound upon that. Or at least wait until someone starts vandalizing the Republican page, so your edit gets lost in all the crowd control ;)--Elamdri 10:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Lol!

Contents

Brain and imaging

Thank you for your recent contributions to the brain and fMRI articles. Its nice to see someone else interested in this area. You should check out this page I use for neuroscience articles Neuroscience Project. I would welcome any contribution.

P.S. I removed information about "only 10 percent of the brain" in the brain article. This is actually a bit of an "urban legend" and is not really true. Just an F.Y.I. Again thanks! Tmtoulouse 13:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


May I discuss with you, please ?

The editing of the Scientology article. The information which you are attempting to introduce into the "basic teachings" section is already present in the "controversy" section, if you please Terryeo 11:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah true, but it seems to have a lot less detail. Perhaps it would be cleaner to leave the Scientology article as is and creat a new article dealing with the whole Xenu/Space Opera thing. User:Pacman
Pacman, thank you for recognizing the subject, Scientology, exists and thank you futher for recognizing that the source of Scientology is the Church of Scientology. There are critics of every religion, I suppose. I didn't mean to imply we should not have any other data, anywhere. But meant to cleanly present "basic teachings" as a bonafide subject. You know, a lot of people say that Scientology has made a big difference in their lives, they feel better, they do better in life, they say. I simply wanted Conservapedia to present some of the reason for betterment, the reason why people say they are helped, you see? For example, searching [1] for "Dianetics" leads to a number of attestations. Possibly an article with a title like Controversy about Scientology would be appropriate? Possibly we could shorten that Controversy section, linking it to the article you propose ? Terryeo 19:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Jargon

Please de-jargonize our article as much as possible, especially in biology. --Ed Poor Talk 10:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)

H Bomb

I reverted your edit as the UK have developed Hydrogen_bomb tech although we no longer posess weaponized version of it. Davidspencer 10:03, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

If you have additonal infomration to clarify a point I'd prefer in future if you add your information to an article rather than rudely reverting a vaild edit, especially if your information doesn't actually contradict what I wrote! Instead of adding your additional info to an article, you actually reduced the amount of information in it! Bad form. I'll now go and re-insert my information along with yours and get it back to where it should have been Pacman 10:15, 16 June 2012 (EDT)
I replaced the correct information and then added a clarification to the article. However I have no intention of getting into an edit war, if you feel that you were correct then I will leave the article as you see fit to edit it. Davidspencer 10:30, 16 June 2012 (EDT)
OK, I see you got to the article and added the extra information needed to clarify your point before I could. Good work! Pacman 10:37, 16 June 2012 (EDT)
Personal tools