User talk:Fire Star/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cross-Dresser article

I thank you for being willing to get involved with the Cross-dresser dispute, and for your comments in the discussion area; although I would like to make one more request. The phrase "by a religious court" doesn't make clear that all of the clergy chosen for the tribunal were selected by the English from among their own partisans. If you need evidence, you can see a summary of some of the relevant documents at: [English records concerning Joan's trial] Although I don't want to bother you further, changing that phrase to read: "by a pro-English religious court" would clarify the situation, and would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks for your time and consideration. AWilliamson 16:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AlexR again

AlexR is not only engaging in his usual performance in Cross-Dressing, but also attacking you as "Fire Starter" in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joan of Arc (cross-dressing).
This really gets rather tiresome after awhile. Isn't there a procedure for dealing with people like this? He's done something similar in other discussions as well. AWilliamson 22:20, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tai Chi Chuan

Following the MoS for China-related articles, one would have Pinyin FIRST, and the Wade-Giles SECOND. If you think that China-related articles absolutely have to have double articles, then post your concerns on the talk page. I doubt that idea would work.WhisperToMe 18:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, I don't think apostrophes are necessary in the Tai Chi Chuan general reference in the body of the article: "Tai Chi Chuan" w/o the apostrophes seems to be the way to refer to it in the English language. WhisperToMe 18:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll go with "T'ai Chi Ch'uan". :) WhisperToMe 20:41, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Commandments article

You do? Wonderful, please propose the changes in Talk: first, providing citations, so people can respond, rather than making wholesale edits and then saying "justify why my changes shouldn't be there". Unfortunately, as it stands, you have reversed the burden of proof, a common failing on Wikipedia. Jayjg 19:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've already raised some of the issues in the Talk: page already. Jayjg 19:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-Dressing Mediation

First of all, thank you for your reply to the mediation request.
Secondly: I'm hoping you can clear up something. Given that AlexR's preferred version of the article is already the current form, it would seem to be in his interest to simply reject any compromise which the mediator might offer, since he has nothing to lose by doing so. This factor alone would seem to doom the process to futility from the beginning, would it not?
Unless you have another suggestion, I think it would be reasonable to ask that you restore your more neutral version of the article - which, for the record, was not my preferred solution (as AlexR repeatedly alleges) although I was certainly willing to accept it - and then protect the article against further tampering until the mediation process has run its course. Otherwise this process will be rather pointless, will it not? AWilliamson 00:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is in response to your reply to the above.
Granted, he's not the worst I've seen, but let's take a look at his points. His main claim is that I allegedly haven't addressed his arguments, which you know is not true. You have also confirmed that he invented the false charge that I used the term "deviant" in the debate, which he has utilized to claim that my position is "biased". His allegations on other points are similarly invented or, even worse, merely repetitions of allegations made against himself. This is not someone who engages in reasoned debate, nor does he have any incentive to accept a mediated solution if his preferred version of the article is already the current form, as I pointed out previously.
Surely you can see my frustration with the process. AWilliamson 23:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ginsberg

I don't see that as a clear statement of pedophilia. Given that Ginsberg was known to like being provocative, I believe he's saying something that can deliberately be misinterpretted. I think he's saying he loves boys, but not necessarily in a sexual sense, knowing full well that people will take the quote to mean the latter.

I think there are no grounds to label him as a self identified pedophile. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, I'm not really interested in that. His publically given reason for joining NAMBLA was on freedom of speech issues. He also said 'I would say that anyone above puberty is OK. As long as it's consentual and nobody complains. But usually it's the cops that rape the kids by brainwashing them and intimidating them so they'll turn against their older friends.'. So even if you accept that as an admission, it's above puberty and therefore not pedophilia by the definition in use by this encyclopedia.

[edit] Thanks

Thank you very much for your vote for my adminship. I greatly appreciate your support. ffirehorse 23:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RfA nomination

Hi Fire Star,

Just wanted to say thanks for the vote of support at RfA. It looks like I've been promoted, and I look forward to helping you out with admin tasks. –spencer195 17:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VFD/HS

Just letting you know that I thought you might be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools, as well as what I wrote on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:41, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial, but useful content

Hi Fire Star, Thanks for your effort on the Joan of Arc edit dispute! Switisweti 00:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for deleting that. Seriously, why would he choose me out of all the Wikipedians?--Etaonish 02:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Technically, he worked on Karpov, which was (and still is) 'my pride and joy'. But that was around when it got nominated for FA, so I doubt there's any shadow of doubt. Wait...why am I doing this again?  :) --Etaonish 04:21, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I appreciate your support vote on my RfA. Joyous 00:01, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A quick note to say thanks

Image:WikiThanks.png

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tai Chi Chuan family tree

Hi Fire Star, I reverted the last change because the tree is based on Family Styles, not individuals. Even though Yan Pan-hou is older than Yang Chien-hou, he is part of the Wu Style branch as teachers of Wu Chuan-yu and Wu Chien-chuan. The Yang Styles should stay in the same column with the Wu as a branch in a different column. Thanks, Petersam 04:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) Tai_Chi_Chuan#Family_tree

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 15:35, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that! That's actually a good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)