User talk:Heuh0

Your comment on my talk page

This is a reply to your comment on my talk page before you took it back: I do not have a personal issue with you, and I apologize for the incorrect revert. That was a mistake, and I have undid my changes. Sincerely, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 03:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elon Musk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queens University. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, completely accidental on my part, I will fix now. Thanks for letting me know. Heuh (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musk discussion

Hi Heuh0. Now that it has been clearly identified who the proposer is on the Musk talk page, you might want to be sure you explicitly state your rationale, along with the proposal. At least that is where I've usually seen it done.

I'm sure it is explained in several places on Wikipedia, but when an outside closer comes in, they are not interested merely in the "votes" -- they want to see both the positions taken (SUPPORT, OPPOSE) along with the rationale for the position taken. That is why they call it a !vote, or "not vote". Generally rationales should be tied to wiki-policy.

This is very important for the proposer; but it is also quite important for each editor who weighs in with a !vote. When I eventually take a position on the two proposals, I will support/oppose, and simultaneously provide my rationale. For the nominator/proposer, I've often seen them leave it out and just say "SUPPORT, as nom" which will make it clear to the closer that their rationale was provided previously.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean just provide a short reason for Supporting or Opposing or as the proposer give a reason/rationale for creating the proposal? Heuh (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just provide a brief summary of your reason for your proposal, or your position. (You don't need to do it in both places for the same proposal.) You'll find that the folks who volunteer to come in and close a discussion, will tend to discount opinions that don't attempt to explain why a particular course of action is good policy.

I say all of this to help you be the most productive editor you can be in these sorts of discussions. I'm not necessarily for or against the proposals you've made. But I will learn more, and eventually put in my view.

By the way, the most typically used term for this sort of thing on a Wikipedia Talk page is a !vote, or "not vote". If you say "vote", you'll be telegraphing to folks that you may not (yet) understand how the process works. The reason wiki-editors say !vote, is to remind us all that it isn't a simple vote, where the one with the most votes "wins." The closer will look for consensus, and consensus based on the major elements of wikipolicy, like WP:V, etc.

Best wishes to you. N2e (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Heuh (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited B-theory of time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eternalism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TMDrew's William Lane Craig-boosting in B-theory of time article

Hi there,

I'm willing to make common cause with you with regards to complaints over TMDrew's constant editing of B-theory of time which seems to serve no other purpose than to give unsuspecting readers the impression that William Lane Craig's attacks on B-theory is somehow indicative of mainstream philosophy and physics. Any ideas on how to address this problem or others who might be enlisted as either supporters or mediators?

Currently, TMDrew seems to be solely running the show on B-theory, incl. reverting my edits which simply made explicit the age of the Eddington and Laird quotes and their connection to Craig (as I've already documented on the talk page). TMDrew has now also purged almost every reference to Craig despite not changing the text which is clearly based on Craig's objections. In this way, as I also pointed out on the talk page, Craig is effectively allowed to speak for philosophers in general. Mojowiha (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've pretty much let the article alone for a couple of days (I don't care that much, anyway), and TMDrew hasn't reverted my yet again inserted details on the Eddington and Laird quotes and their context vis-a-vis Craig. I can also see that the article's ballooning criticism (aka Craig) section has finally drawn the attention of other editors, and expect the article will probably be reworked (and hopefully improved) now. Mojowiha (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Heuh0. You have new messages at Andyjsmith's talk page.
Message added 14:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

andy (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]