User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 8
Excuse me, but in gay pride the part about some people thinking pride is sin and some people thinking that homosexuality is just a social construct is essential!
I remembered your interesting comment on elect vs. appoint on Talk:Adolf Hitler; would you mind adding a few thoughts to Talk:Politics of Germany? Thanks. djmutex 08:29 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
By the way, your comment is invited at Talk:Droop Quota. I don't know how you feel about going back to the original text for clarification, since things can change over time... Evercat 23:17 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I missed the debate. could you point me to it? The last I'd heard, (movie) was added as a disambiguator only if necessary, and it didn't seem necessary. Koyaanis Qatsi
- My understanding of it was that the disambiguator we decided on was (movie), and that it was added only when there is ambiguity. In this case, there is no other The Towering Inferno, and if there is, then The Towering Inferno should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect. Koyaanis Qatsi 03:43 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I have to say I think that proposed system of using (movie) sometimes and (film) sometimes, based on location, seems a bit silly. What about a film directed by Hitchcock, funded by MGM? (film) or (movie)? A film directed by Spielberg funded by New Zealand? ... I think we should decide on one disambiguator and use it. I don't care which. Mostly it's been (movie) because that's what we decided way back when (whenever, I don't remember, I dissented but relented). If we decide that (film) serves it better, I'd be happy to help move them. But I do think we should use one disambiguator only. I also don't care whether we use the disambiguator always or only when necessary, but I think we should talk about what to do and then do it, instead of each user just doing his or her own thing. ^_^ Let's rekindle the debate if necessary. (assuming we can find it.) Koyaanis Qatsi 03:52 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I'm a film buff, and I don't buy it. I think, still, that we should use only one disambiguator. If it should be film, that's fine with me, I don't care. I'll help move them. But I don't expect everyone to know which disambiguator to use, or to care why they should use one and not the other. Koyaanis Qatsi 04:23 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in the opinion poll going on now at Talk:Clitoris. MB 18:05 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Dear JT- Writers use the passive may be used to good effect in three situations: 1. When the actor is not known. 2. When the actor is commonly known. 3. When the writer does not desire to reveal the actor.
Bad writers use the passive too much. I was shocked to see the poor quality if the writing in the World War II article and made a few corrections.
Of course the "Passive voice is to be avoided" comment is simply an exampleo f the passive voice. Something like a pun.
We Apple people have to stick together.
Now, with three tildies … PaulinSaudi
Have you taken a look at WikiQuote yet? It's only just started and could do with your input -- Jim Regan 02:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Claire Short demands our Tony's resignation, when was this? No report on the BBC yet? Mintguy 22:11 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- S'ok I've got it on Ananova - http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_799090.html
- Hm... just found a video of the interview on the BBC. She used the words... "I think it would be better for his legacy... and the legacy of the party ... if he made a voluntary departure". This is hardly the same as demanding his resignation. I don't have time to change it now, as I'm off to bed. Night. Mintguy 22:23 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Take a closer look at Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, particularly the term of office as stated in the table. -Smack 00:41 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I notice that you just wrote "Prime Minister" as "prime minister" in the article on Iain Duncan Smith. Is that the capitalisation convention you support for the term? I thought you were one of the biggest supporters of the use of Capital Letters around here! -- Oliver P. 05:11 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm not entirely sure I see why there should be a distinction between "Elizabeth II being queen" and "Elizabeth II being the Queen". Whatever I would do for one I would do for the other. But to be honest, I'm probably inconsistent in what I write in both cases! Certainly if I was talking about "Queen Elizabeth", I'd use upper case, and if I was talking about "queens" in general (I mean in the aristocratic sense, you understand!) I would use lower case. The other cases seem to be in between. (And similarly for P/presidents and P/prime M/ministers) Hmm. I'll have to think about that. Oh, but please don't associate me with Jordan. I really have no interest in her at all. I'd just been up all night, and my brain was half asleep. I had no idea what I was doing! -- Oliver P. 05:41 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
One more thing - regarding Cooking on a campfire, the article of mine that you listed for deletion. I'm rather surprised that, after its removal from the deletion list, you haven't taken any further action. If it's really as bad as you said it is, it probably needs an "accuracy disputed" statement at the top. If you think it's bad enough that you should blank it temporarily until you get around to fixing it, I won't protest. I'm leaving it at your discretion, provided that the article doesn't disappear all of a sudden :) . -Smack 06:25 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Silly me! I should have checked before I moved Wolfe Tone. It's just that so many of these Britannica articles are being put in on the full name -- the other day I moved William Harcourt from "William George Granville Venables Vernon Harcourt", which was quite ridiculous. Could you maybe change the text of the Wolfe Tone article, where it says, "commonly known as", to explain which bit is what? Deb 19:09 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Must've been tired -- I put this on your user page instead of your talk page, first time round. And you didn't notice! Deb 16:23 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In Britain the tax year still runs to April 5. Mintguy
I've put a note of possible interest at Talk:Papal Tiara. If it's true, you might want to incorporate the information into the actual article. -- Someone else 05:52 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I must, again, inform you that your lack of utilization (or utilisation for you non-Americans) of AIM is troublesome. --Dante Alighieri 09:16 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I thought it might be him when he created that "purges" article, but I didn't think to trace the IP until you raised the alarm. Thanks! - Hephaestos 04:28 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh a Mac user ! Hi !
No worry. No hard feeling because you were sharp. It is your nature to be sharp, better be used to it :-) I understand others being sharp ;-)
Thanks for explaining GrahamN business. I understand. I never seconded the sysop-bashing on Erik part. Just the democratic (not the right word, but the proper one is failing me) principle implied by the Wikipedia:votes for undeletion page. I thought several times of deleting all the sysop bashing part from the page, as it has nothing to do here, is diverting the purpose of that page, and is giving it bad reputation. This makes me unhappy. Because a good principle is being shadowered by poor use of it. I should be more bold in editing what other people say, when irrelevant, or removing their stuff where it does not belong. Sysop questioning did not belong to that page. Next time that happen, I will boldly delete it.
I should say here I don't like rules very much. I respect them quite little on the fr wiki (but we also have far less rules :-)). I see no problem with Erik deleting things boldly. I would be happy that people see no problem with others undeleting things boldly as well. I would be perfectly content not to respect the rules of Wikipedia:votes for deletions, but right now, I respect them because I respect all of you, and all of your opinions. I am quite troubled that some don't feel they should respect these rules themselves, but heck ! why not ? :-) What makes me really unhappy is to read I am abusing sysop powers just for having tried to respect the rules to the utter precision point. If that come to that point, I might just as well take it easy with rules :-)
I hope you see that this has nothing to do with GrahamN. This is just a question of principles. But I understand your concern about GrahamN behavior. Thanks again for explaining.
perhaps, the votes for deletion page should be utterly refactored ? I think it is really causing more trouble than it should.
Wikilove. user:anthere
I doubt that the anonymous IP you blocked belongs to DW. The blocked user mailed the wikien-l mailing list under the address "_khl at heh dot ca". heh.ca appears to be a pro-pedophile website, the WHOIS entry says that it is registered on one Jason Garrison from Montreal. The IP address is from the pool of Sympatico.ca, which claims to be "Canada's most popular ISP", so it is quite likely that IP addresses by many Canadian users will look very similar. Unfortunately, we can't just assume that they all belong to DW. It's a lot like the situation with Michael.
For the time being, I'll assume that this is not, in fact, DW, so I have unblocked his IP address and restored the edits (except for the ones to gay and NAMBLA). --Eloquence 20:57 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I thought there'd been a blanket IP block imposed on the specific range of IPs within sympatico used by DW? Has this been lifted? It wasn't straight after the weekend and I've not heard anything since... Martin 11:10 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Can I interpret that as "yes, the blanket block has been listed"? If so, thanks for the info. :-) Martin
- There's been a pedophilia advocate? Just as I was harping on and on about diversity of ideas. It's just too bad that vandalism and unpopular opinions have to correlate so strongly! 172
- His edits have been restored -- e.g. ILGA Purges. Eat your heart out. --Eloquence 12:11 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice words Jt.
You know, it is very curious. If you click on an international link, there are other issues there, other rules, other habits, other fights and mostly other people. Two different worlds for me. Perhaps I can not assume being in two different places and manage well at both. I am a visitor here. Too many differences. Two many unspoken rules. Too many written rules which are in fact not the rules applied. Habits not written, but discovered by chance. Too many events I don't live directly, but only through the eyes of other people. Much longer time to get to understand other ones than when in your own language. Either one stay out of it, just hit and run (edit an article and just leave it be), or one get involved into every bit. And as long as one does not know the bottom line of any events, one is an outsider somehow. To come with other eyes and other thoughts and other ideas, try to apply them, and be told "this is not the way it works here". Then nicely, people take time to explain to you what obviously you missed. Will always miss. I wish more english people would participate in other wikipedias. I think this is an inherent limitation of NPOV here.
I've written some paragraphs on King Petar II of Yugoslavia, which you seem to have had in mind. Please, take a look and do what you want with the text. I won't make troubles. :-)
-- Ruhrjung 19:49 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Why capitalize "apostolic succession"? The preference for the wikipedia is to downcase things, and "apostolic succession" is usually not upcased in contemporary writing. --Tb 23:16 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
JT - please make sure to take something older away when you add something new to the Selected Articles section on the Main Page (otherwise the page looks really bad at 800x600). Also, newer entries are placed nearest the subhead. Thanks! :) --mav
With all respect, don't you think your change in http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=World_War_II&diff=1146583&oldid=1146495 makes a somewhat displaced impression? If Éire's deviations from "true" neutrality are listed, soon also the other countries' will be. Wouldn't it be sufficient to note such "exceptions" at sub-pages to World War II?
-- Ruhrjung 23:00 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thank you for your note on my talk-page, which I naturally agree with.
My thought is however, that it might be suitable to make an article of its own on the different deviations from strict neutrality and the impartial attitude toward the belligerents according to the conventions of the Second Hague Conference. If I as a reader had a choise, I would prefer to see Éire's, Sweden's and Switzerland's sensitive manoevres in the same context/on the same www-page.
Neccessarily with some sort of brief summary where it's linked to the page, but... ;-)
What do you think?
-- Ruhrjung 15:01 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've just been researching duelling for list of famous duels. The Irish MPs of the late 18th century seem to enjoy shooting and stabbing each other. Take a look at http://www.chirl.com/1700/1770.html Mintguy 01:37 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Disagreements on naming policy are hardly indicative of irreconciable worldviews. That said, it is indeed interesting that a "Jewish State" (I put this in quotes because I do ascribe to the Chomskian view that modern Zionism is not true to what I perceive as Judaism) would practice many of the same evils which it condemned during early epochs.
As a proponent of the theory that nation-states are actors upon the world scene much as an individual acts upon the local microscene, I must note that this same sort of problem occurs with the victims of domestic abuse. Thusly, I perceive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as involving two groups attacking each other, not because of any real anger towards the other; but rather, because of displaced anger.
Naturally as a leftwing radical, I ascribe the cause of the displaced anger to capitalism. I believe that World War II, in stemming from World War I, in turn stemming from the era of New Imperialism; was obviously a war of capitalism. As such, I perceive the Jews as victims of imperialist economics. Likewise, I perceive the Arabs as the victims of imperialist economics (for obvious reasons which center around the word "colonialism").
One might then ask how I can favor one nation over the other, my reasoning is that Israel (being a fully ratified nation-state) is an "adult" while Palestine is a child. Indeed, the sucide-bombers often are children. As such, I hold Israel at fault although I am most certainly willing to accept an insanity defense. I do not believe Israel knows or comprehends the difference between right and wrong.
I do hate to go on at length, but I urge you to read GE Bridger's WWI-era book "Psychology of Nations" which serves as one of the cornerstones of my geopolitical POV. I would characterize Israel as existing in a state of manic depression, not unlike that psychosis which grips the United States. Indeed, a sign of depression is a lack of interest in things once found to be vitally important -- for example, religion. It is obvious beyond measure that the modern Judaism, that known as Zionism, has abandoned its deeply religious past. How many Jews do you know who ascribe to the argument that Judaism is more than a religion, it is a culture; and that the religious aspect of Judaism is so inferior that, for many Jews, it isn't a factor in their daily lives. I have yet to meet a Jew who, of course in my POV, truly ascribes to the message of peace, and forgiveness, which permeates the Old Testament.
In any case, I have gone on enough. Let me merely re-emphasize the key point: one cannot expect Palestinians to make any significant effort to halt the violence -- they lack the necessary infrastructure. Only Israel is able to "stop the train" as they say.
In an aside, I often encounter those who are unfamiliar with the symbology of "the train". This of course is primarily in reference to two concepts, that of panoramism in which industrialrevolution-era French remarked upon the changing worldview brought by mechanized transport; this is also in reference to the remarks by Kaiser Wilhelm, at the outbreak of World War I, that he would stop the war if only there were someway for him to stop the trains which carried his army.
As I was saying, the Palestinian Resistance (for that is what it is) is organized as a partisan guerilla organization; as GW would say, "They are terrorists" and as terrorists they are organized into cells -- as such, not even knowing who else is part of their organization -- they are completely unable to communicate with one another. Only Israel has the ability to communicate, it can communicate both with the Palestinians and with itself -- sadly, the only message it broadcasts is "Surrender or Die"
I must note that many historians have argued that the primary reason Germany did not surrender in 1943-45 was that the Allies were adamant that there must be a total and unconditional surrender. Unfortunately, a multi-celled political entity is incapable of unconditional surrender; there will always be some part of the entity which remains unaware of the decisions made by the others.
In closing, let me refer you to another book. This book, unfortunately, I am no longer sure of the name. There is a movie called, perhaps "Dawn's Early Light" (or is that the book), or perhaps the name is "Twilight's Last Gleaming". In this fictional book, World War III is occurring and the American bombers are flying to Russia. The bomber crew (around which the book revolves) mutinies and returns to American airspace; before the Americans shoot them down as traitors, the Russians interpret this withdrawal as a gesture of peace and so, while they do not stop the war (indeed, the bomber crew witnesses a submarine attack against an aircraft carrier during this part of the book -- note that submarines are analytically akin to a "terrorist cell") - the Russians do manage to withdraw some of their bombers from American airspace -- thusly, and gradually, although the war does not immediately end, it DOES come to a peaceful and happy ending. The lesson to be learned from all this, of course, is that Israel must "turn the other cheek" to suicidebombing and must return to the 1948 borders and must offer the olive branch of humanitarian aid WITHOUT strings attached.
Indeed,
Pizza Puzzle 01:55 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my talk page about your ideas for VfD. That page certainly needs a lot of thought, the way it's been going lately. So I'll give it a lot of thought before contributing to the discussion again. I'm having a bit of a break at the moment, you see. I'll get back to it soon enough, though. :) -- Oliver P. 16:35 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In the United States, at least, NO place has "St." as its official name. The US Government has an official policy that "Saint" should be spelled out in the place names. I am conforming to this, and you note that I have not changed Canadian and British placenames. BRG July 19
I don't know what you mean by the "official map." The official definitions are as given by the US Geological Survey. Take a look at the Board on Geographic Names site and you will see what the "official" policies are. BRG July 19
Please see Great Depression. A single user has turned this article into a monetarist tract. I think that it would be a good idea to restore the flawed, largely incomplete, earlier version until the new contributions can be integrated into a balanced article. It would be great to hear your position. 172
Hi. Can you explain why you reverted Jack Russell terrier? RickK 04:57 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I just did on your talk page. I was writing it while you were leaving the msg here. FearÉIREANN 05:05 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your convincing intervention on the Great Depression page yesterday. Since then, I've been working on the causes section, which is still far from complete.
Today, I'd like to know what you think about redirecting the US-centric article to a page such as Great Depression (United States). Thanks in advance! 172
Thanks for the idea. The article requires a good deal of work before it's workable, but I'll definitely try to do it. 172
- BTW, would you be interested in contributing to an article on the Depression in the UK? If not, I'd get to it someday or find someone interested. Right now, I'd like to finish the US-related material and perhaps move on to Latin America and Canada before going to Europe. I can't believe it; I fell into the trap of another massive, never-ending project! 172
Am I to interpret your silence as an indicator that my essay was not well received? Pizza Puzzle
I really don't understand where all this hostility comes from. Surely a handful of teensy-weensy changes (essentially linking words to articles and nothing more) is not some indication that I am some other user with whom you have disagreed; and certainly my changes were not inappropriate.
Since this has attracted so much attention, I have been reading the talk pages and looking through the edit history and it would seem that one user (user:Vera Cruze), some time ago, attempted to move part of the article to imperialism and theories of imperialism so that the page would not exceed 32k. I believe that user had the right idea; unfortunately, it would seem that some others mistakenly believed that text was being deleted -- however, that doesn't seem to have been the case. Pizza Puzzle
Lir/Vera is reverting to his old ways. I think that he's stirring up trouble on the New Imperialism page too. As you can see above, he's maintaining the pretension that he wasn't the user, Vera Cruz, who was banned for attempting to hijack the page at question. 172
Thanks for posting your last message on Pizza Puzzle's page. You are a very forceful communicator. However, I fear that it won't work. My guess is that he'll be back tomorrow or even later tonight (BTW, sorry for my provincial use of US Eastern Standard Time; it's morning for you right now) on the New Imperialism page insisting that he's not Vera. It seems as if he might have a behavioral disorder impeding his ability to understand others. However, it's a shame. He's very knowledgeable (very impressive considering that he's an undergrad student, from what I've heard) and is an extremely active contributor. Perhaps, under all his incarnations, he has been the most active contributor of all in terms of his number of edits, which is my impression from the most active Wikipedians page. He could be another Mav if he were only more cooperative and less dogmatic. 172
Well, my skepticism was warranted yesterday. He's back on the New Imperialism page with this most outlandish of claims: "I don't have a clue why 172 thinks I am some other user. Pizza Puzzle"
I'm beginning to fear that the New Imperialism page is going to have to be protected.
Hi.
Could you provide a summary, or a link to such a summary, of the evidence that Pizza Puzzle is in fact the user formerly known as Lir? To date I've only seen supposition and some circumstantial evidence, but you seem to be implying that it has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. If so, I would like to see that evidence, as currently I feel I am not seeing the entire picture.
Thanks,
Martin
As you'll be able to see, the New Imperialism page has turning rapidly into the disaster that got Vera Cruz banned months ago.
Pizza Puzzle should be forced by the community to add a disclaimer to his user page admitting his past, listing all his incarnations, and admitting that he has been given a second chance by Jimbo. I'd like to know what you think about this idea. If you're receptive, I'd e-mail the idea to Jimbo. 172
- I don't mean to call the cops. This would be a "preemptive" measure. I just think that having a disclaimer on his page would force him to behave and preemptively avert problems. He wouldn't do it himself, but it's something that Jimbo could force him to do. 172
- Thanks for the wise, deliberative advice. It appears that the situation has stabilized. He has taken the advice of several users, including myself, to freely work on his own version of the article on a temp page. So I'm content that the main page of the article, at least so far, is safe from being slaughtered gradually by a series of minor edits. And he's content that he finally has a New Imperialism sandbox with which to experiment after all these months. Perhaps my firm reaction (or over-reaction) encouraged him to give in to the idea of a temp page, which he shrugged off when it was first advised. So that's an improvement in itself from earlier personas; before he'd never give into a compromise along the lines of a temp page. So I'll take your advice and keep a low profile on the page, and concerning the PP issue altogether, for now. 172
This Catholicism problem reminds me of Fred Bauder on Communist state. 172
Thank you very much.... for that birthday song :-)Rickyrab 18:43 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
concerning catholocism I edited the information to be more NPOV, yet you keep changing it back to the old information, not as POV, in addition, you remove information and links that provide proof, proof not present in your version, just leave it alone, it's basically the same, except you're not letting me have my links that prove the info, wouldn't you want that in your proof? Nostrum 04:56 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I had really hoped that by now you might have come to your senses, realized that I know more about what is "official" in the USA than you do, and apologized. It seems that because of my fights with various Britons (though you'd think an Irishman wouldn't be so pro-British!) over earlier placename edits, you have a predisposition to take the opposite side to anything I do. Briefly, my one point is that the websites of various cities in the US that may have "Saint" in their name have no official status, the BGN's database is the one authority in the USA that has official status, and that Wikipedia if it wants to be taken seriously must be in agreement with the BGN on US placenames -- I am sure there are other authorities that might apply to Australian, Canadian, British, and Irish placenames, but I claim no expertise there. If you want to talk of an "official map" you will not find one, but there is an official mapping database at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnis/web_query.gnis_web_query_form and you will find that it does not just list mountains, rivers, etc., but also "Populated places." I really wish we could get this argument over with, so I could go back to entering the hundreds of multiple-place names I have to put in here. Your refusal to recognize the BGN as official is really ridiculous, and if anyone else is swayed by your arguments, it can only harm the efforts of Wikipedians to get Wikipedia taken seriously. BRG July 23, 2003
- Check the naming conventions talk page, I actually TALKED to the BGN on the issue. --Dante Alighieri 16:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)