User talk:67.101.243.74

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School IP address Attention:

This IP address, 67.101.243.74, is registered to Corcoran College of Art and Design and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason a message intended for one person may be received by another. Similarly an innocent user may be blocked for another user's vandalism. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please read our advice on this situation.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block with the template {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.
School staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Contents

[edit] This IP is in use by a large number of users on any number of computers at a university's campus.

Which university is it? --AW 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other edits

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. AlistairMcMillan 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Dan Rather

Thanks for experimenting with the page Dan Rather on Wikipedia. Your test of deliberately adding incorrect information worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Srose (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Bump. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - Gilliam 18:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Lawn, New Jersey Russian Jewish population

The source added -- "In Fair Lawn, Getting to Know a New Language and a New Land; ON THE MAP", The New York Times, July 7, 1996, accessed February 3, 2007 -- does not provide any documentation supporting the fact that Fair Lawn is the "home to a very large Russian Jewish immigrant and first generation population." I am not arguing that the community does not exist -- I know it does -- I just have not seen anything to support the claim, nor does the source provided address the issue. Alansohn 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaczynski

You can find my impressions on this matter in the discussion section, which is where you should participate and find consensus.

Regarding your position, I must say right away that the category "mass murder" is clearly not suitable, while others might be very controversial. Ted Kaczynski killed three people on separate occasions, which technically leaves him out of that definition.

If you want my opinion regarding your personal message, consider this: Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist? Do you believe that he is insane? Well, to wikipedia neither what you believe of Osama, nor Kaczynski, matters. If you go to Osama article you will find that he is labeled as a "militant Islamist". That article has high traffic and it was asserted for some time now that, following the wikipedia’s guidelines, he should not be classified as a serial killer, mass murder or even a terrorist. Now, have you read kaczynski's manifesto and the justifications that he gave to send those bombs? In what way would you consider Kaczynski's actions to be less political in nature than those of Osama bin laden's? So, answering your question, how about "militant anarchist" as for the initial category in the article?

  • There's nothing redeeming about either person; I think, simply, that the basis of their criminality should be made clear as that is undoubtedly the most obvious aspect of both figures when one would look for either's article, which is, after all, the foremost use of an encyclopedia. 67.101.243.74 13:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Who defines that? Will you change "osama" article according to those (yours) principles? I understand that you might find this way of argument to be a form of absolute relativism and, as such, unacceptable. But these questions I ask are not rhetoric ones. They are honest straightforward questions. I would like to know what would you do to both of these articles, and what is your position to the issue I raise, regarding the applied wikipedia's guidelines in osama's article, in order for you to be consistent.

Personally, I believe that Theodore Kaczynski is a political prisoner. But my political and moral views on this subject are irrelevant, no matter with how many people I share them with, just like yours.Maziotis 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I have read your arguments on the discussion page for the article since writing my reply to you. I find your position on the matter indefensible and ridiculous, but, as you would agree, that is neither here nor there. With regard to the "Osama" article, according to my principles, which almost certainly correspond directly to the principles of every sound beneficiary of contemporary civilization -or, at the least, the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking peoples for whom this encyclopedia is maintained- it should make immediate mention that he is a terrorist and a mass murderer. To suggest otherwise goes so far beyond moral relativism as to make the sentiment simply demented. There is such a thing as a terrorist and there is such a thing as a mass murderer. If there were not, the terms would not have use. There is, to-day, no more widely acknowledged example of a terrorist than Osama bin Laden, who is, by consequence of his activities, a mass murderer. Yet, we digress, as I have not seen that article nor have I, at present, any want to edit the "Osama" article, but only to ensure that the "Kaczynski" article is undistorted and legitimate. You have asked "who defines that?" Who defines what? I suggested nothing that should not be self-evident and I did not put forth some term that is vague or undefined. A terrorist is one who engages in acts of violence or fear-mongering that resultantly causes terror. By all accounts, and from what I have read on the discussion page, even his own account, Kaczynski is a terrorist. It does not matter whether some insensible editor has applied his efforts to remove that language from the "Osama" article or any other article because it is an irrefutable fact that Kaczynski is a terrorist. One can always engage in word-play and conjecture to affect the removal of a correct and legitimate term, but it is rather a show of incompetence than an act of scholarship. Also, as Kaczynski has murdered --that is, knowingly and premeditatingly killed-- multiple others, he is a multiple murderer. I would consider him a serial killer, but again, that would be a personal determination. The fact of the matter is that he is a multiple-murderer. If one chooses to split hairs, one can say that "mass murderer" is inappropriate based on number of those killed, but because the term "multiple-murderer" is definitely lesser applied than "mass murderer," the latter would seem more natural in expressing that quality of Kaczynski. The position you have taken, regardless of my belief that it is indefensible and ridiculous, is to employ semantic concerns to the fact that he is a terrorist and a multiple-murderer, if not a mass murderer. Those concerns, and the insistence that he not be labeled with those quite correct terms, immediately demonstrates a personal insecurity with your ideology. That is, is your belief in Kaczynski's ideology authentic or is it simply awe with the terrible crimes he has committed, disguised by exercises in intellectual discourse, such that you must refuse to recognize the fact that his acts were terrorism and murder? 67.101.243.74 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I have moved this discussion to Talk:Theodore Kaczynski so that it is accessible to a wider participation. 67.101.243.74 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Boston, Massachusetts

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Boston, Massachusetts. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. RGTraynor 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page for the response. PentawingTalk 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. YuanchosaanSalutations! 07:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Undergarment page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Doug Bell talk 08:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Wyeth

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Andrew Wyeth are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! --AW 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Wikipedia states that articles should not have trivia sections. Interesting facts shouldn't be in the article unless they are beneficial to it, which the ones I removed are not. The others I integrated in because they were useful. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles --AW 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2007 / Wisconsin

The edit at Wisconsin wasn't a test, actually. Hmong is not an English word since the consonant cluster hm cannot begin a word in English. I read about the Hmong on the linked page and replaced it with what I believed to be the correct English term for them rather than a Chinese word or English neologism. Now, having reexamined the matter, it seems that even though it is a neologism and not a word, it has gained widespread use. If you know, though, what is the English word or phrase for these people? It seems to me now that it is Miao or Miao Chinese / Laotian (refering to their national origin rather than their ethnicity as they straddle the Chinese / Laotian border). 67.101.243.74 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to every Hmong I've ever met, including the gentleman at the Hmong American Studies office a few dozen feet from where I'm typing this, the English word for these people is Hmong. Like many other linguistic innovations, the word has become a naturalized citizen of American English. We have thousands of these people here in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and they are every bit as much a part of our landscape as the Poles, Danes, Somalis, Gujaratis, and everybody else; and we call them Hmong. (There are even government publications for Hmong citizens and residents, in the Hmong language; and posters on the sides of buses, etc.) Given that they ended up in the U.S. because they took our side during the Vietnam War, they are actually among the more welcomed non-white immigrants here.--Orange Mike 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I see. The Oxford Unabridged (the authoritative dictionary of English) doesn't include the term Hmong. While it may be that the term is locally used, it doesn't seem to be an actual word. Since the article Hmong uses that spelling, it makes no sense to change it here and, as such, it was right of you to revert it. Nonetheless, if you're able to inquire of the gentleman you mentioned, does he know what the term for his people used in Standard English is? There must be one as they have surely been called something before they anglicized their own name as Hmong. Thank you. 67.101.243.74 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I discovered the answer. I can now add the information about why the term Hmong is used rather than a normally constructed English word. It does seem that Hmong is correct even though there is no corresponding word in proper English. 67.101.243.74 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmong is now the proper English word for these people (it appears several times in the online version of the OED, by the way). At one time they were also called Miao or Meo, from Chinese words; but the proper English word for them is Hmong. --Orange Mike 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I discovered it is the correct English term for them. Although it could not be called a proper English word since it is not an English word, it is a foreign word used in English. As such, if proper form were to be observed, it should be italicized every time it is used. However, this is neither a proper encyclopedia, so that rule would seem null in this case, nor is that the point of our discussion. I did find the answer, however, and concede that it was used correctly in all cases online here. 67.101.243.74 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is where I quote my friend James D. Nicoll:

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle [sic] their pockets for new vocabulary.

--Orange Mike 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, certainly that's so in a way. Yet, there are standards of English that were developed in academic, governmental, and ecclesiastic circles beginning in the 17th century. It isn't a matter of defending English; it's about ad(a/o)pting words into it. English speakers simply can't create the hm phoneme in Hmong with the linguistic tools provided them by the language. 67.101.243.74 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
For you and me, maybe; but for my little girl it's just another word, like horchata or filk or bratwurst or anaphyllactic, that happens to start with a rare consonantal cluster. It's certainly more common and easier to pronounce than, say, phthisis, which is in all the dictionaries. --Orange Mike 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
So is Hmong in the dictionary, as you've pointed out. It's still a foreign word used in English and not an English word. Phthisis is used in English because much of the standard language as it was constructed drew from Greek and Latin for specialized fields. Consider, though, phrases like coup d'etat and noblesse oblige which have been used in English for over four centuries. They are still considered foreign phrases and are properly italicized in observant literature. I suppose, though, we'll have to wait and see how the term is eventually incorporated into the body of English words. Or our grandchildren will. Or someone will. Haha, best regards. 67.101.243.74 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users, and you will be able to:

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, remember to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). --AW 15:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey look, Awiseman decided to post a completely random message on the talk page again! Thank you and keep up this caliber of great work! 67.101.243.74 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James VI of Scotland

Regarding this edit: It was not poor English at all. The agenda that the previous language attempted to bolster is that James VI was by some measure a homosexual. In point of fact, it is only recent historians who misattribute fairly typical court behavior to homosexual energies. Earlier "historians" are typically poets or adversarial aristocrats, often French (Catholic opponents of James' rule), who wrote slanderous accounts in order to stir dissatisfaction. These conditions are entirely overlooked by the editor who contributed the content we are now editing to the article (as well as the greatest portion of the "Personal Relationships" article). 67.101.243.74 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It was bad English because the "if" clause must be followed by "were"; and the word order made the clause clumsy. For the rest, I think we agree. I edited that note to incorporate three referenced views: one, that historians differ and the matter is murky; two, that James regarded sodomy as a crime; three, that he had physical relationships with his favourites. Hopefully that covers it. My own opinion is that if we are going to be modern about this, what exact form his relationships took with his favourites matters little. qp10qp 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha, you're right. I misread my own initial contribution. Thank you for the correction. I am pleased you view it in much the same way as I do. It truly does matter little. It is the preoccupation of some others with making the case for notable figures' homosexuality, I think, that has recently over-emphasized such issues' relevance. 67.101.243.74 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forget it

I am not remotely interested in your frankly bizarre attempt to impose a breathtakingly inappropriate link to the Scottish people article. The plain fact of the matter is that we link to the country article for nationality descriptors:

  • '''Pierre Moinot''' (born [[March 29]], [[1920]] in [[Poitou]] – died [[March 6]], [[2007]] in [[Paris]]) was a [[France|French]] novelist.
  • '''Samuli Torssonen''' (born [[November 12]], [[1978]], according to the [[Internet Movie Database]]) is a [[Finland|Finnish]] film writer, director, actor and producer.
  • '''Katherine Anne Couric''' (born [[January 7]], [[1957]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[media personality]] who became well-known as co-host of [[NBC]]'s [[The Today Show|''Today'']].

There are, quite literally, hundreds of thousands of examples of this precedent.

I repeat, I am totally opposed to your attempt to spam link to the Scottish people article. If you want to change Wikipedia practice, go ahead and try. Good luck.

Now quit bugging me. If you want to discuss it further, raise it somewhere at Wikipedia:Questions, because I am not remotely interested. No further correspondence will be entered into. Life is just too short. Bye bye. --Mais oui! 08:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "spam link." As I have said, I recognize that there are articles that link to the respective homelands of people, but there are also articles that link to the people. It is not my business, nor is it of interest to me, if you want to enforce incidents of poor grammar and inexact links to articles just because some other articles include such seeming errors. There is nothing breathtaking about it, although I have to stifle a laugh at the notion that my interest to edit in favor of grammar and relevance has taken your breath away. It also does not bother me that you somehow feel bugged by having to communicate with your colleagues here. If that is the case, please rest assured that I shall consider an extended silence on the matter a concession to my views on your part. Finally, in any further "correspondence," please refrain from suggesting my interest in discribing Ferguson as a member of the Scottish people "spam." There is nothing at Wikipedia:Questions that will resolve this conflict; please keep the discussion relevant to the change. 67.101.243.74 09:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Ferguson, should Scottish be linked to Scotland or Scottish people?

Regards Your question. I can't force anyone to discuss anything. Of course, if someone is repeatedly reverting while refusing to discuss, that always has been and always will be considered disruptive. You also might consider asking for a third opinion, maybe see what someone else has to say on the issue? Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't mean to seem as though I were suggesting you could force him into the discussion. Your suggestion regarding the third opinion was what I needed, so thanks. I believe my comments here will draw an additional opinion within the three day period I have set out. As an administrator, do you feel there is anything more I can do regarding the policy review threat by Mais oui? Thanks again. 67.101.243.74 10:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Provided that you can reliably source that he is indeed Scottish, BLP is not a concern. As it's been challenged on those grounds, however, you should explicitly state where you got that information. If it came from some of the already-existing article sources, just point out which ones say so. Are you familiar with the system/code for citing references? Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not disputing that he is Scottish. Of course he is! What I strongly object to is the attempt to label Mr Ferguson with a specific ethnicity. It is utterly irrelevant to the career of a TV talk show host. The standard Wikipedia practice of linking to the country must apply. Why on earth should Mr Ferguson be singled out on the grounds of ethnicity? --Mais oui! 10:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
On the specific content dispute, I don't have any particular opinion one way or the other, but it's not a terribly uncommon practice that I've seen to note a person's ethnicity, provided it can be reliably sourced. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the dispute here is not so much stating that he's Scottish, but rather whether that link should be piped to Scotland or Scottish people. Is this correct? Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct. --Mais oui! 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added a request for a third opinion. Hopefully, another set of eyes can help settle the matter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I also believe that is correct, which is why I can't understand the reasoning for half of the points Mais oui has struggled to make nor why he refuses to discuss the issue like myself and the rest of his colleagues. Thanks for putting in the request. 67.101.243.74 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A third opinion has been given on the linking of Scottish in the Craig Ferguson article.[1] I think all that needs to be said about Scottish links has been said, but let me know if I can be of any further assistance over this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

One other point to the person using the shared account at IP address 67.101.243.74, as you are currently an active Wikipedian, why don't you create a user account? It would make life easier for everyone --Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in here, but how exactly does creating a user account make life easier for others? Aside from banning vandals, which can be done via IP, there is really no need for anyone to know who is making edits or posting on talk pages. It is the content of the words that is of importance, not the alias behind them. There is far too much weight given to e-rep and tenure on this site. As long as everyone follows proper indenting on talk pages, there should be no problem keeping track of where one post ends and the next begins. Since this is not always the case, I do sign my posts, but only as a courtesy to others who do wish to keep track of the things "I" say, for whatever reason. I've considered the benefits of creating an account, but none of them appeal to me. I quite like my "outsider" status, as I feel it gives me greater credibility over those editors who elaborately decorate their user pages and make Wikipedia their e-home. I view such editors as inherently and necessarily biased in everything they say and do here. --64.222.222.25 11:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You're in a distinct minority on this, although I follow your reasoning. Not all Wikieditors are as flamboyant as, say, myself (but then I'm the same way everywhere). The point is that an account and a handle give you the potential for establishing your credibility as an editor who is careful with her/his sources, properly respectful of civility and other Wikicustoms, and in general a useful member of this project. If you are merely an IP number, you build up no "street cred" (so to speak), but are associated in most editors' minds (fairly or not) with the drivebys, the dabblers and the vandals. --Orange Mike 15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (absentminded chap)
And you are...?  ;-) --64.222.222.25 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I may not be the third party you were looking for, but: since he is living in the States, and making his fame here, I think that a pipe to Scottish people would be more appropriate. If he were living in Scotland and making his fame while still based there, like Ken MacLeod, Charles Stross and that crowd, I would pipe to Scotland. --Orange Mike 18:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is rather an interesting question, and there are a lot of countries which have the "X people", "Xians", "People of X", etc. Maybe this would be an issue to bring up at the manual of style, to get some more input? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Dodd

Hi. The way you have worded the "waitress incident" in the Chris Dodd article is fine now, I believe. But just so you know, using the word "allegedly" dosn't clear you from libel. When I used to work at a news station, they always had to word this very carefully. They couldn't say "John Smith allegedly robbed a liquor store", they had to say "Police allege that John Smith robbed a liquor store". Since it is now clear that the waitress was the one who considered this an assault, though no charges were filed, it should be fine. Cheers! nut-meg 17:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)