Misplaced Pages

Hey matey - have nothing but deep appreication and wicked respect for you. Thanks for all the support my man, see ya on IRC! 05:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks for helping fend off the vandals while Gregorian chant was on the main page. I wasn't prepared for the level of vandalism. It's heartening to know how efficient and diligent you WP admins and editors are to revert it! Peirigill 07:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Beer

Working on it right now. BalfourCentre 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

About Skalic

Hi Luna!

I am deleteing this paragraph simply from reason of common sense. Skailc is Croat- THERE IS NO ANY KIND OF CONTROVERSY (ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUCH A IGNORANTS, BUT REFUSE TO THINK FOR THEM SELF!) !

I'll enthusiasticly keep on deleting any kind of rubish on wiki, also this one...

Ciao! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.13.95 (talk) 25 August 2006.

Hi

Hi there, Luna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kokothebread (talk • contribs) 26 August 2006.

Thanks

Hi, thanks for the quick and helpful response, it is much appreciated, and will greatly reduce the amount of time it will take to finish my task, Thanks again L Trezise 09:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Skalicgate

I am deleteing this paragraph simply from reason of common sense. Skailc is Croat- THERE IS NO ANY KIND OF CONTROVERSY (ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUCH A IGNORANTS, BUT REFUSE TO THINK FOR THEM SELF!) ! If you were a slavist as I am you would be knowing that Skalic, Skalich, Skalić etc. are all of slavic origin. Further, in a modern Croatia there are many familyes with that kind of surname ( also important to mention that all that family names are notorious in country for centuries). And on the end- I don't think that Wiki should keep on with old,(for scientists) well known mistakes of "solid" encyclopedias like "Britannica", "Americana"... concerning some matters (esp. when it comes on smaller nations!). If you don't have better (more accurate,much more recent!) sources and letters you shouldn't insist on "CONTROVERSY". On this way wikipedia is becoming more and more ridiculous for the anyone who knows somewhat better on this ( and some other) matter than usual user. This also means that Wiki is missing to provide a scientific proven informations for it's users.

But why am I so surprised- it is said fact that even country like England still doesn't have a department for Croatian language and culture (not a single university!). If you want it, you can check it easily!

Ciao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.53.28 (talk • contribs) 26 August 2006.

I'll respond here, since you seem to be using a dynamic IP address. Given the sourcing provided in the article, encyclopedias such as Encarta and Brittanica don't seem to corrborate your claim that there is "no controversy." Quoting from Encarta , "In 1559 the Encyclopaedia; seu, Orbis Disciplinarum, tam Sacrarum quam Prophanum Epistemon … of German writer Paul Scalich was published. This survey of the entire circle of science, “sacred and profane,” represented the first use of the term encyclopedia." Care to explain? Luna Santin 09:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't proven anything new- only that Brittanica and Encarta are shamely ignorant concerning some matters ( I wonder if you have read this part: If you were a slavist as I am you would be knowing that Skalic, Skalich, Skalić etc. are all of slavic origin. Further, in a modern Croatia there are many familyes with that kind of surname ( also important to mention that all that family names are notorious in country for centuries).)

Your proces of corroborating is different that this of many countries in Central, Eastern, South-eastern Europe, also many countries in other continents which aren't of western origin...

While others rely equally on sources and common sense (which means to use little more your own brain!), your proces is reduced to basic repetition of something from some sources, doesn't matter if they are true/accurate or false/mistake. In fact your kind of corroborating doesn't pay much of attention on checking... it's enough that it is written in "Scientific Bibles" like "Britannica" ... But why am I so surprised- it is said fact that even country like England still doesn't have a department for Croatian language and culture (not a single university!). If you want it, you can check it easily! But,I guess, all of you are just a products of that kind of society/es. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.53.28 (talk) 26 August 2006.

I highly encourage you to read policies/guidelines including verifiability, no original research, and reliable sources. Probably most importantly, per WP:V -- "the standard for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is not truth, but verifiability." With that in mind, please find reliable sources to back up what you're saying. These philosophies have been developed over time in an effort to improve the factual accuracy of Misplaced Pages; if it makes sense, it's not our place to decide whether Britannica or Encarta are accurate, but to report what they've said (and, if there's disagreement among reliable sources, to report that). Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing your sources. Regards, Luna Santin 10:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see! But what else could you espect of countries like England, Usa, ... Yes, it has long time ago this countries abandoned a basic TRUTH!

I guess, if you said something false for enough time it would become "reliable". In short, that is basic of your proces of corroborating and providing a "proven facts"! You know, there's a term for this kind of people in my (also some other countries) country - they are called "FAHIDIOTI"- MEANING, SOMEBODY WHO'S REPEATING SOMETHING WITHOUT ANY KIND OF understanding! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.53.28 (talk) .

Again, please cite reliable sources so that your claims can be verified by other editors, and so that Misplaced Pages can avoid original research. Luna Santin 10:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there's no any point of this- you just keep on; let anyone think for your own sake- DON'T RISK THAT MUCH TO USE COMMON SENSE! WIKIEDIA IS unfortunatelly, as I can see, very poor kind of source- IT'S OWN POLICY IS A "REASON" AND "EXPLANATION" FOR PROVIDING FALSE/INACURATE INFORMATION. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.53.28 (talk) 26 August 2006.

I will gladly stop mentioning verifiability policy when I'm convinced you've actually read and plan to abide by it -- an excellent way of doing that would be to cite reliable sources. Again, I encourage you to do so. Thanks so much for your time. Regards, Luna Santin 10:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that you are repeating yourself like as if you were a parrot, also a very big FAHIDIOT... So, as it seems, policy gained a decisive victory over basic scientific truth! Vive la démocratie! It seems that this "encyclopedia" is fool of lawyers and politicians, but there's none of, for instance: historians, linguists, slavists, ...

You (likewise some others there) are not worth while of any reasonable discussion- simply from the fact of their dogmatic blindness ( something similar as a dogmatic blindness of Christianity of middle ages).

Regards

Your userpage section "Some statistics"