User talk:Blanchette

Hello Blanchette

Good luck!

You may want to look at this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 reading it (I am not a native speaker and I tend to make such mistakes often).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 attributable and is from a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 description was clearly Gelbspan's conclusion, since only the statement by Wigley that you included in quotes was clearly from The Heat is On, with the introductory material, as I said, being in the "voice of Wikipedia." 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 almost 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. —Blanchette 03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 not Gelbspan who is saying this - again i have no idea where you are getting that idea from - but the article from the Pacific Institute that are stating this in the 2nd last paragraph - about the authors.

Please, Please, Please - read the actual reference - 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. --Kim D. Petersen 08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 someone) 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 Wikipedia-style reference. In the future, maybe you (anyone) 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! —Blanchette 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, but (1) I don't edit Wikipedia 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 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. Agent Cooper (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. deleted them. (Cylonagen (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I requested usurpation of the username "Blanchette" on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Demande_de_renommage_de_compte_utilisateur/Usurpation 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: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial:Journal&user=Blanchette).—Blanchette (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sleuth21 (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sleuth21 (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, talk pages are not forums and any comments that seem to be discussion not related to improving the article may be removed. Here's the official "canned" warning about using article talk pages as a discussion forum.

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:FUTON bias for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 opinion. —Blanchette (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my warning here. If you restore your comment again, an admin may choose to block you under the WP:EW policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] clearly demonstrates. Thank you. —Blanchette (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ad hominem bully squad is out again in CRT Talk - you might want to bring back your voice of reason there. Thanks. Davidwhittle (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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? 166.70.45.120 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a start. That is all that is really necessary for that article.

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 than any other remaining works. Its not really the place to go into a detailed study of types of domestic buildings, etc.

What is needed now is an article specifically on Ancient Greek domestic architecture, parallel to articles Ancient Greek temple, Ancient Greek theatre, Acropolis, Agora, and Stoa and similar to Romanesque secular and domestic architecture.

I suggest that you write. I have another project at the present minute.

Amandajm (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ann Dunham with father and children (enhanced).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care, but then if you're a robot, you really don't care either so then we agree. —Blanchette (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Battle of Leuctra you said 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. There are two photos of the monument on Commons, at File:The victory monument of the Thebans at Leuctra (tropaion).jpg and File:The back side of the restored victory monument (tropaion) of the Battle of Leuctra.jpg. If you want to use either of them in the battle article (or in Sacred Band of Thebes), you're certainly welcome to do so. Deor (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]