| Revision as of 15:31, 24 June 2015 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,026 edits →Fire: err← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:34, 24 June 2015 edit undoTkuvho (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,424 edits →FireNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :There is a request by ] to "please provide evidence, per talk request." However I am not sure what the request is exactly. The comment by IP 91.180.201.239 that ] restored is apparently not requesting any evidence but rather proposing a conspiracy theory. William, if you can explain the mendacious chestnuts to me, I may be able to comment. Furthermore, I did provide more evidence recently, found in the reference by Feingold (see the page). ] (]) 08:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | :There is a request by ] to "please provide evidence, per talk request." However I am not sure what the request is exactly. The comment by IP 91.180.201.239 that ] restored is apparently not requesting any evidence but rather proposing a conspiracy theory. William, if you can explain the mendacious chestnuts to me, I may be able to comment. Furthermore, I did provide more evidence recently, found in the reference by Feingold (see the page). ] (]) 08:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :: You removed a talk page comment with the edit comment ''removing comment by banned user''. I requested evidence that this was indeed a banned user. The talk page request is, err, the request on your talk page . My apologies for hiding it from you so cunningly ] (]) 15:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | :: You removed a talk page comment with the edit comment ''removing comment by banned user''. I requested evidence that this was indeed a banned user. The talk page request is, err, the request on your talk page . My apologies for hiding it from you so cunningly ] (]) 15:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::The administrator who just protected the page feels that there is a pattern of behavior indicative of sockpuppeting. Given the history of Galileo-related pages, these are probably sockpuppets for . Are you more interested in protecting trolling IPs than in discussing content? ] (]) 15:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:34, 24 June 2015
Lousy
Your punctuation is lousy. This page is for improving the main article. I refer to 69.159.210.13.
This article relies on Recondi (1983), however in some respects his work on teh Assayer have been found to be "fanciful", "implausible" and have "selective use of the evidence" - from Goodman, D and Russell C.A. (eds.). The Rise of Scientific Europe 1500- 1800 . Milton Keynes : Open University, 2003,
Also I have the spelling of the author of the work to which Galileo repsonds as Horatio Grassi in the above text book and three other associated Open University books, but as a new person at Misplaced Pages I haven't altered it. Should I? WOuld I need to cite source just to correct spelling? The text of the Assayer can be found here: Bigcitydeserter (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)bigcitydeserter
Grassi was right?
The claim in the lede that Grassi was right is apparently misleading since Grassi argued that comets moved around the moon, at variance with current wisdom. Tkuvho (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Tkuvho (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I want extensive quotation from Galileo and Grassi on the comets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.83.0.202 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:Tkuvho is contradicting himself, crossing out his own remark in this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.0.172 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Grassi's follow-up critique
- Grassi's follow-up critique is certainly relevant to this page in that it was a critique of The Assayer, the book under discussion. What is relevant is not so much indivisibles as atomism. Tkuvho (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- A thousand writers have made remarks about the "Assayer". This article will get very long if they are all included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.125.220.140 (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Fire
In attempts to pull Galileo's chestnuts out of the fire for him, Tkuvho has depicted Galileo as a liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.201.239 (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is a request by William M. Connolley to "please provide evidence, per talk request." However I am not sure what the request is exactly. The comment by IP 91.180.201.239 that William M. Connolley restored is apparently not requesting any evidence but rather proposing a conspiracy theory. William, if you can explain the mendacious chestnuts to me, I may be able to comment. Furthermore, I did provide more evidence recently, found in the reference by Feingold (see the page). Tkuvho (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- You removed a talk page comment with the edit comment removing comment by banned user. I requested evidence that this was indeed a banned user. The talk page request is, err, the request on your talk page . My apologies for hiding it from you so cunningly William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The administrator who just protected the page feels that there is a pattern of behavior indicative of sockpuppeting. Given the history of Galileo-related pages, these are probably sockpuppets for Azul1411. Are you more interested in protecting trolling IPs than in discussing content? Tkuvho (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- You removed a talk page comment with the edit comment removing comment by banned user. I requested evidence that this was indeed a banned user. The talk page request is, err, the request on your talk page . My apologies for hiding it from you so cunningly William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)