Knowledge (XXG)

User talk:Blanchette

Source 📝

146:) formatted the paragraph in the Michaels article it was not obvious which reference (Gelbspan or Pacific Institute) went with which piece of information. I have reformatted it as a block quote since the entire paragraph (minus their inline citation) was taken from the Pacific Institute article. My only change was to replace the Institute's inline citation of Gelbspan with an ellipsis and a Knowledge (XXG)-style reference. In the future, maybe you ( 516: 102:, with the introductory material, as I said, being in the "voice of Knowledge (XXG)." I was reluctant to repair the paragraph because I thought that perhaps the phrase "one of the world's leading climate scientists" might be a direct quote and should be presented as such, but I had no easy access to the source to check this. I gather from your remarks on my user talk page (i.e. it is 535:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 312: 166:
few reasonably intelligent people out there who know enough about the Objectivism phenomenon to be able to be accurate while having no stake at all in the thing itself. But I find trying to work with Objectivists and Anti-Objectivists from that stance of detached neutrality impossible, and the conduct of both types basically insufferable.
430:
I admire you, and want to thank you for your courage, grace, and moral clarity. You're generally right on target about what happened, of course, but when you're up against a coordinated ambush and professionals, you can't win. They may not have the truth or reason on their side, but who needs it when
346:
I disagree that my comments were not related to improving the article, and I defended that opinion after my comments were first deleted, as you can read in the history of that page. Unfortunately, I was alone in that opinion, but my contribution was made in good faith. In any case, thank you for your
457:
It's a generic article which doesn't go into great detail about any specific building type, or individual building, but uses examples of some of the finest buildings to define the major principles of style. The focus on temples as examples is because they demonstrate the aesthetic principles better
165:
Thanks for your message, but (1) I don't edit Knowledge (XXG) anymore, as I've had too many negative experiences with biased editors, and (2) I'm not really interested in participating in the improvement of any Objectivism-related articles anymore, for parallel reasons: I may be one of the very very
97:
Dear user Kim D. Petersen: Sorry if I seemed to be doubting your word on the sources for the material on Tom Wigly. I did not doubt that Gelbspan referred to Wigley as "one of the world's leading climate scientists", I merely disagree that, as written, the sentence made it clear that this honorific
49:
If you mean the orangish message about having messages, a user gets it when he logs to Wiki if he has a new text on his discussion/talk page for as long as he doesn't check it. And you are completly right about the two changes, they are my mispellings - please be bold and fix them next time you are
283:
You should do the decent thing and delete your biased and irrelevant note ('This is biased') from the Talk page. There is no substance to your allegation. The text of the original Lancet 2002 article in now available full-text. Its 'message' is nicely summarized in the WP article. It's not biased.
601: 75:
Would you please stop deleting something with the comment: "Remove unsourced opinion" - when the reference is quite clear at the end of the text - and if you'd bothered to check it - you'd find that the paragraph is (almost) verbatim from it. It's
141:
Okay, Kim D. Petersen, now I know what you're talking about. I'm sorry I didn't understand what you meant sooner. I managed to find the source of the entire paragraph in question in the Michaels article. Because of the way you (I mean
597: 150:) would consider using block quotes for this kind of material written by others, and help people like me avoid confusion. The block quote icon is the second from the right on the edit toolbar. Thanks! — 209:
so that I might unify my username on all Wikimedia Foundation user accounts. User:Blanchette on fr.wikipedia registered 16 mai 2006 and has never made a contribution as far as I can tell (see:
269:
Your note ('this is biased') is actually quite annoying. You should read the article (Wentz: Futon Bias, Lancet 2002) - it's now available full-text. There is no excuse for your accusation.
115:
Blanchette - the reason that i said (almost) is because i haven't checked it letter for letter - but from what i can see its entirely verbatim. And as i've said on the talk pages - its
431:
you have time, money, and enough fellow travelers to establish a consensus on whatever side you choose? Just curious - is there any way for Wikipedians to make offline connections?
594:
Maybe we can find a freely distributable photo of the monument and place it in this article, perhaps with text similar to the text found in the Sacred Band of Thebes article.
106:
verbatim) that it does not belong in quotes, so I have left it as is and merely reorganized the paragraph to make the source of all the conclusions presented unambiguous. —
486: 130:- thats what its there for - since you keep mixing Gelbspan into this - i have no choice but to assume that you haven't bothered to do so. Please do. -- 547: 393:
Thanks, but I didn't need any stinking warnings, as my polite request for an administrator's opinion on the issue before any complaints were made
527: 320: 432: 328: 98:
description was clearly Gelbspan's conclusion, since only the statement by Wigley that you included in quotes was clearly from
531:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 458:
than any other remaining works. Its not really the place to go into a detailed study of types of domestic buildings, etc.
536: 462: 416:
The ad hominem bully squad is out again in CRT Talk - you might want to bring back your voice of reason there. Thanks.
324: 394: 131: 119:
Gelbspan who is saying this - again i have no idea where you are getting that idea from - but the article from the
85: 206: 252: 436: 307:
may be removed. Here's the official "canned" warning about using article talk pages as a discussion forum.
589: 421: 171: 605: 470: 319:
for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are
23: 210: 466: 383: 248: 190: 565:
I really don't care, but then if you're a robot, you really don't care either so then we agree. —
499: 289: 274: 244: 417: 167: 120: 57: 36: 207:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Demande_de_renommage_de_compte_utilisateur/Usurpation
602:
File:The back side of the restored victory monument (tropaion) of the Battle of Leuctra.jpg
77: 566: 555: 397: 379: 364: 348: 336: 316: 240: 232: 213: 151: 107: 532: 375: 81: 613: 186: 495: 285: 270: 53: 32: 211:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sp%C3%A9cial:Journal&user=Blanchette).—
374:. If you restore your comment again, an admin may choose to block you under the 303:
Actually, talk pages are not forums and any comments that seem to be discussion
50:
reading it (I am not a native speaker and I tend to make such mistakes often).--
509:
Orphaned non-free image File:Ann Dunham with father and children (enhanced).jpg
551: 332: 236: 609: 474: 492:
I suggest that you write. I have another project at the present minute.
323:. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting 617: 574: 559: 503: 440: 425: 405: 387: 356: 340: 293: 278: 256: 221: 194: 175: 154: 134: 110: 88: 64: 43: 123:
that are stating this in the 2nd last paragraph - about the authors.
598:
File:The victory monument of the Thebans at Leuctra (tropaion).jpg
478: 604:. If you want to use either of them in the battle article (or in 482: 450:
That is not a start. That is all that is really necessary for
514: 327:
and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See
528:
File:Ann Dunham with father and children (enhanced).jpg
371: 205:
I requested usurpation of the username "Blanchette" on
596:
There are two photos of the monument on Commons, at
546:will be deleted after seven days, as described in 461:What is needed now is an article specifically on 548:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion 542:Note that any non-free images not used in any 8: 487:Romanesque secular and domestic architecture 126:Please, Please, Please - read the actual 446:Domestic architecture in Ancient Greece 29:You may want to look at this article.-- 608:), you're certainly welcome to do so. 593: 321:not to be used as a forum or chat room 54:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 33:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 315:Please do not use talk pages such as 7: 305:not related to improving the article 227:Shape of the Earth Merger Discussion 463:Ancient Greek domestic architecture 396:clearly demonstrates. Thank you. — 235:of the merger proposals involving 14: 331:for more information. Thank you. 231:Your comments are welcome at the 310: 1: 537:our policy for non-free media 257:21:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 222:07:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 504:03:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC) 406:06:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 388:22:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC) 357:06:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 341:21:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) 195:18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 633: 426:21:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 412:Critical Race Theory redux 176:16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 65:06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 44:01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 618:17:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC) 515: 441:22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 294:11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 279:11:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 185:thanks. deleted them. ( 575:23:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC) 570: 560:17:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC) 401: 352: 217: 155:21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 135:08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 111:03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 89:17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 465:, parallel to articles 590:Talk:Battle of Leuctra 520: 370:Please see my warning 606:Sacred Band of Thebes 525:Thanks for uploading 518: 471:Ancient Greek theatre 24:Reification (fallacy) 467:Ancient Greek temple 299:Talk page guidelines 378:policy. Thank you, 521: 325:our reference desk 245:Shape of the Earth 16:Hello Blanchette 584:Battle of Leuctra 533:claim of fair use 265:Futon Bias (Talk) 121:Pacific Institute 624: 523: 517: 363:Edit warring at 314: 313: 71:Patrick Michaels 62: 60: 41: 39: 632: 631: 627: 626: 625: 623: 622: 621: 586: 550:. Thank you. -- 512: 511: 485:and similar to 448: 414: 368: 365:Talk:FUTON bias 317:Talk:FUTON bias 311: 301: 267: 241:Spherical Earth 229: 203: 183: 181:FDIC ref errors 163: 132:Kim D. Petersen 86:Kim D. Petersen 82:reliable source 73: 63: 58: 52: 42: 37: 31: 27: 12: 11: 5: 630: 628: 585: 582: 580: 578: 577: 510: 507: 447: 444: 413: 410: 409: 408: 367: 361: 360: 359: 300: 297: 266: 263: 261: 249:SteveMcCluskey 228: 225: 202: 199: 182: 179: 162: 159: 158: 157: 139: 138: 137: 124: 100:The Heat is On 93: 80:and is from a 72: 69: 68: 67: 51: 30: 26: 21: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 629: 620: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 583: 581: 576: 572: 568: 564: 563: 562: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 540: 538: 534: 530: 529: 522: 508: 506: 505: 501: 497: 493: 490: 488: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 459: 455: 453: 445: 443: 442: 438: 434: 433:166.70.45.120 428: 427: 423: 419: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 392: 391: 390: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 366: 362: 358: 354: 350: 345: 344: 343: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 308: 306: 298: 296: 295: 291: 287: 281: 280: 276: 272: 264: 262: 259: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 226: 224: 223: 219: 215: 212: 208: 200: 198: 196: 192: 188: 180: 178: 177: 173: 169: 160: 156: 153: 149: 145: 140: 136: 133: 129: 125: 122: 118: 114: 113: 112: 109: 105: 101: 96: 95: 94: 91: 90: 87: 83: 79: 70: 66: 61: 55: 48: 47: 46: 45: 40: 34: 25: 22: 20: 17: 587: 579: 543: 541: 526: 524: 513: 494: 491: 460: 456: 451: 449: 429: 418:Davidwhittle 415: 369: 309: 304: 302: 282: 268: 260: 230: 204: 184: 168:Agent Cooper 164: 161:Agent Cooper 147: 143: 127: 116: 103: 99: 92: 78:attributable 74: 28: 18: 15: 454:article. 19:Good luck! 567:Blanchette 398:Blanchette 380:EdJohnston 349:Blanchette 347:opinion. — 237:Flat Earth 233:discussion 214:Blanchette 152:Blanchette 108:Blanchette 592:you said 475:Acropolis 187:Cylonagen 128:reference 544:articles 496:Amandajm 286:Sleuth21 271:Sleuth21 144:someone 481:, and 243:, and 148:anyone 104:almost 552:B-bot 479:Agora 376:WP:EW 333:Yworo 59:talk 38:talk 614:talk 610:Deor 600:and 571:talk 556:talk 500:talk 489:. 483:Stoa 452:that 437:talk 422:talk 402:talk 384:talk 372:here 353:talk 337:talk 329:here 290:talk 275:talk 253:talk 247:. -- 218:talk 191:talk 172:talk 84:. -- 588:On 539:). 201:SUL 117:not 616:) 573:) 558:) 502:) 477:, 473:, 469:, 439:) 424:) 404:) 386:) 355:) 339:) 292:) 277:) 255:) 239:, 220:) 197:) 193:) 174:) 612:( 569:( 554:( 519:⚠ 498:( 435:( 420:( 400:( 382:( 351:( 335:( 288:( 273:( 251:( 216:( 189:( 170:( 56:| 35:|

Index

Reification (fallacy)
 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 
 talk 
01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 
 talk 
06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
attributable
reliable source
Kim D. Petersen
17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Blanchette
03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Pacific Institute
Kim D. Petersen
08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Blanchette
21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Agent Cooper
talk
16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Cylonagen
talk
18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Demande_de_renommage_de_compte_utilisateur/Usurpation
http://fr.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sp%C3%A9cial:Journal&user=Blanchette).—
Blanchette
talk
07:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
discussion

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.