User:Graymornings/Dec 2008 2

This is an archived user talk page. Please do not modify it. My current talk page is here.

Hi Graymornings. I try my best to make a wikipedia page for my favorite band and I would really like that if you delete my page, at least try to make me one. Thank You, Kinnster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KiNNsTeR (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graymornings! I was about to comment on the requested move of Sex sneezing syndrome when I saw that it had already been done. Unfortunately, I'd like to ask you if you could undo your actions in that regard. You copied and pasted the article to the new title, when it ideally should have been moved. By not moving it, you have disassociated the page's edit history, leaving it behind at an unseen redirect, and you forgot to move the talk page as well. In the future, you should use the "move" tab to move articles, which will place the article (along with edit history and talk page) to the new title. You probably knew all that and just forgot, so I thought I would remind you and ask if you could fix it, please, :-)

In any case, I think that a better title can be found for this article than sexual sneezing. Sexual sneezing implies that the sneezing is somehow sexual or sexy, and it isn't. The condition is really that of sexually-induced sneezing. I think that the title Sexually-induced sneezing would work well, and it is more descriptive and not misleading.

Anyway, thank you for improving the article so much, you did a great job! Cheers, Maedin\^talk 20:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Graymornings, easily fixed! I'm glad I came across the article, by the way; I have been laughing at myself because I kept typing and thinking sNexual seezing and sNexually-induced seezing and, well, that was all rather jolly! Simple things, you know, :-) Maedin\^talk 21:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion--I have taken you up on it, since, after another look at the individual entries, none of them are worth keeping. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

dude stop deleting my theory its my personal theory which i'm still trying to re-write it nothing to do with being bored at work.. im a logical thinker like Albert Einstein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepansky (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

how will it be on tv/newspaper if its new? how did any of the theories become to what they are today.. people have to start somewhere and my place is my own page on wikipedia which I will advertise later on. I got a few theories to post concerning new types of energy sources designing a new energy transformers which work more efficiently then current ones primitive engines people use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepansky (talk • contribs) 08:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to contact him.. and I created the wiki page in the first place it wouldn't of existed? so it shouldn't be redirected its like creating a new word.. and having it redirected to something completely different understand??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepansky (talk • contribs) 08:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reinserted my addition to the Nondualism under the observation that Greymornings deletion is based upon opinion, and not in keeping with the rules of etiquette and editing of Wikipedia. To explain, Greymornings said: "I reverted your edits to Nondualism."

First off the rules of etiquette here state on the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution page that when you see something you don't agree with to "balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources."

You have provided no sources for your point of view. All you share is your opinion. You state:

Greymornings said: "Although A Course in Miracles is relevant for the article, it doesn't seem to warrant the lengthy mention in that particular section."

Your admonition of my addition being lengthy is not supported by any references or sources. You only say it "seems" lengthy, which is opinion. To me the length fit well, so the correct response according to Wiki etiquette would have been to discuss this with me. Perhaps we could have agreed upon a shorter version if you are certain it is too long, and we still can. But I don't see the correct response to have been to just delete my work.

Greymornings said: ""A Course in Miracles" is given a brief mention in the "Christianity" section, though, and it seems to fit better there."

You have again provided no sources for this statement, but only opinion in saying it "seems" to fit better there. I have addressed this section with direct references to both the bible and A Course in Miracles. Next time please support your deletion with facts and sources, or discuss it the author before deleting their work.

Also you deleted Kenneth Wapnick and Gary Renard as being teachers of nondualism. The section states that "Not all individuals in this list self identify as presenting nonduality." So at least some of them are there because others view them as teaching nondualism, or their work supports this view, without the teacher saying it explicitly. But not only do the works of Kenneth Wapnick and Gary Renard support non dualistic views, but they themselves describe themselves and their works as nondualistic. You can see The Disappearance of the Universe page 35, and Question # 718 here: http://www.facimoutreach.org/qa/questions/questions133.htm

Obe19900 (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Waide Piki (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)