User talk:Mostlyharmless

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm no longer on a wikibreak, but I'm trying to keep my use reasonable!

/Archive 1

Contents 1 Contested speedy 2 Rodney Davies 3 AfD nomination of Slartibartfast 4 Hello 5 Hajj Amin Elahi Ethnocentric censorship 5.1 Your suspicions 6 Coincidences 7 Hmmm 8 Excellent Points 9 RFCU case moved 10 Criticism of Human Rights Watch 11 Stepping on each other 12 3D 13 Barnstar 14 Contents box 15 Image:Flag of NATO.jpg 16 Adnan Ghalib 17 MedCab Case 17.1 Onto the case itself 17.2 Other Subsection 18 Falafel 19 SU WikiProject 20 re frustration 21 DYK 22 Thank you 23 Redirect? 24 Anthrosexual

[edit] Contested speedy

I would suggest talking to whoever placed the speedy tag on the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Davies

Rodney Davies has not played one NRL game. How is he notable? •Florrie•leave a note• 11:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I fear the can of worms. Cheers, •Florrie•leave a note• 12:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rodney Davies is certainly one that should not go. As per the media attention and material that has been written about him the article should be expanded, perhaps showing details of this article. I shall do this over the coming days.Londo06 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He's a contracted player for the 2008 season, that doesn't begin for another six weeks. He has a profile on the Broncos website and they don't give those out to kids. I will work out of a couple of articles to show that he does indeed have notability. I also understand that wikipedia doesn't need to be filled with could be, will be, might be players of any sport (notability, crystal ball, etc.) but Rodney Davies is certainly not one of them. Londo06 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He was a contracted player for 2007 but did not play at NRL level - a pre-season trial does not count to an actual NRL career - despite the article's praise. •Florrie•leave a note• 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Slartibartfast

An article that you have been involved in editing, Slartibartfast, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slartibartfast. Thank you. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Can You help in Preventing MezzoMezzo who is regularly nominating Articles from Barelwipage for Deletion which You edited.He has choosed Only those who are actualy not Salafi/Wahabi or suitable to him.He has a Long History of distorting facts.ThanksShabiha ^{(t • c)} 14:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hajj Amin Elahi Ethnocentric censorship

Dear Mostlyharmless, sorry to say, but the things Teleomatic has written are not correct and sorry to see you changed you view. What you first wrote was very correct. The references are very valid. I have made over 1200 constructive edits on wiki. I have started dozens of new pages and have included hundreds of citations that have never been challenged by anyone.

Teleomatic has alternative motive for personally attacking me so many times. By the way, there are 8 "keeps" on the page with many individuals who have a long history on wiki.

1. New York Time (the world largest circulating paper) has his obituary and states "Thousands of people mourn his death around the world and are united in prayer."

2. I have read many article in Kurdish about him and he is the greatest Kurdish musician. But, many of the article are in Kurdish and not English.

3. If you look at the www.TanburSociety.com website that is endorsing Hajj Amin Elahi’s music, you will notice that they are official members of the Recording Academy, which is the same as the Grammy Awards. The Grammy Awards are the most prestigious venue for musicians in the world. If it was not true, why on earth would an official Grammy member state "Hajj Amin was a master at the art of tanbur... His style which is known as the “Hajj-Amini” style has become universally accepted by many mainstream tanbur players...".

4. There are two valid books listed, one of which even tele agrees he is mentioned a few times.

We have to be sensitive to foreign languages, especially here in the United States. President Bush said Africa was one country, and most Americans believe the same. Most individuals in the United States think the Japanese, Chines and Koreans are the same, but we both know there is a substantial difference. People here know absolutely nothing about the Kurds, and the poor people don't even have a land they can call there own. It would be an absolute crime against humanity to try to wipe out an article about one of the greatest musicians they had. It would only show the level of ignorance and the high level of ethnocentric censorship.--Octavian history (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that 99% of the text is in Kurdish. That is the problem, and why what you first wrote made so mush sense.--Octavian history (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Once I read it, I remove it because the subject is never ending. I am doing it according to wiki rules about removing text on your own page. I have know about this musician my whole life, but most of everything is in Kurdish.--Octavian history (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You just replaced the personal attack he did against me. He is calling me a lier. I removing the very offensive personal attack & accusation that I "bluff". The definition according to Webster is "to deceive". Wiki rule "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." You are obviously siding with tel, but you should not replace personal attacks. There are thousands of people vandalizing wiki every minute and you and tel have to waste SO much time trying to delete one of the greatest musicians. Very ethnocentric and a shame to spend so much time trying to censor wiki. You are helping tel to destroy the little history the Kurds have.--Octavian history (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your suspicions

Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidences

I read what you said regarding your comments about systematic deletions. It must be purely coincidental that the same group of people are voting the same way for the deletion of the same articles [1] [2] [3]. Now, I'm no expert on this subject and they may all be right - certainly, one user put forward a good argument. But there does seems to be something "systematic" going on and, given that this appears to be an internationally important topic (Iranian accusations of a proxy war by Americans seeking to stoke up ethnic tensions and terrorism within Iran), I am curious as to why these topics are being deleted and why no alternative is being sought. I'm not making accusations, just baffled.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

You have a banner complaining about WP becoming a mess, and at the same time, think that stub articles for notable subjects should be allowed? That makes no sense. The best way to prevent POV pushing is to make sure every point in an article is cited. Otherwise, there soon will be no Web outside wikipedia. Wiki will be bigger than the ROWWW. (rest of World wide Web). Sort of like having the entire universe in a drawer, where does that come up? Slofstra (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure if I should answer here or there. I have no opinion on the lack of enforcement of WP:NPOV but will keep an open mind. Wrt stubs, I have to agree with you in that a one line, cited and referenced stub is far better than a wordy, uncited, unreferenced article. I think you made the point that the latter looks better and is less likely deleted. I'm embroiled in an AFD I initiated but in retrospect gradual trimming of the unverified stuff in that article might have worked better for me. Anyway live and learn. It strikes me that more enforcement of WP:V and WP:RS will naturally bring about more WP:NPOV because pure POV writers often can't be bothered to cite, not to mention that POV and WP:RS are somewhat, not entirely, mutually exclusive. So long and TFATF. Slofstra (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent Points

FWIW, I agree with you. Shot info (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU case moved

Hi, I moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. As you may know, we use the name of the main account as the case name (it makes it easier for us to keep track of the recent requests). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Human Rights Watch

I think the entire section of "allegation of bias against India" in Criticism of Human Rights Watch article suffers from WP:UNDUE. The section was written to push POV using weak sources. Some person can analyse anything on an organization, but their analysis is given much importance here. Especially an article about Human Rights Watch, why so much importance is given on a single source? On a single person? It is WP:UNDUE. The entire section should be deleted as per WP:UNDUE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stepping on each other

We need to stop deleting each others edits and find a consensus. We are both apparently well versed on the issue but share fundamental differences in views. Your views on global immigrant labor are well founded and important. The 3D concept of higher wages is well founded and validated by economic labor equations. Your continued insistence that 3D work is only low wage and untouchable contrasts greatly with the real world truth that most of these jobs pay in excess of 100K per year. You repeatedly delete any reference to 3D having high wages, giving the impression you have an agenda or merely refuse to recognize there is more than one reality here. Please respect these differences and restore the deleted content. Can you please provide your qualifications either academic, professional, personal experience or otherwise, to be editing this page.Granite07 (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Dirty, Dangerous and DemeaningGranite07 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3D

Could you explain what you mean by this:

to provide a framework with which "dirty, dangerous, and demeaning" could be written about. There is a quite definite and specific way in which this term is used, both in non-academic and academic settings

What is the "definite and specific way" in which the term is used, particularly in academic settings? Does the word "demeaning" have particular significance compared to demanding or difficult? Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I simply mean that the term is used as a whole, ("dirty, d.." rather than talking about it's constituent parts (which would mean talking about thousands of jobs over thousands of years), and that this is used to mean jobs which "the general public" won't usually willingly do. These jobs are thus are undertaken by an underclass. The term is often used in conjunction with migrants, particularly those from poor countries, often illegal, but also those with few skills, racial minorities etc. Because these jobs are performed by an underclass, their wages are often (but not always) low. A search of "dirty, dangerous and (demeaning OR demanding)" will pull up thousands of examples of the term being used in the above manner, but very few other types of uses. It was the case that these kinds of jobs were widespread among the general American population, but their decline happened before the term entered currency (the mid 90s), and the term itself describes that shift - 3K refers to jobs that were common in Japan, and the backbone of its growth in 1960s and 1970s, such as shipbuilding, that people are now unwilling to do. "Dirty, d.." is a translation of this term, and has exactly the same connotations Some occupations, such as fisheries fall into this category, but these aren't the subject of mystique, nor necessarily well paid, nor is it inevitable that wages will rise (as have all been claimed). It may be that the term has entered general use in the U.S. and now has a different meaning, but I haven't seen any evidence so far, and Granite has not presented any to support that claim. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• please reference your claim that the term did not enter the U.S. vocabulary until the mid 90's. The term may have been in common U.S. use since the early 1980's or earlier.

• "These jobs are thus are undertaken by an underclass" are you qualified to state this or can you provide a reference.

• "would mean talking about thousands of jobs over thousands of years" please provide some reference, I can not find any sources for occupations other than those given in the article.

• Please provide some explanation for the fundamental flaws in logic you are defending?

• Will you provide your credentials: degree, profession, organization, affiliation?

Granite07 (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

You've appeased the giant Buddha. That was probably wise. Cheers! DBaba (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contents box

Cheers for that help harmless, much better now... do u know if there's any way i can create 2 contents boxes - one for personal bio, the other as an index to articles i have created/edited??A.J.Chesswas (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Be nice to have separate contents boxes within each text box. A.J.Chesswas (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm what I meant was that the contents box following the first paragraph would be better located within the new boxes you've created for my bio and my edits. How confusing!! Do you know what I mean? I can't figure it out. Otherwise will just revert to last edit.A.J.Chesswas (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flag of NATO.jpg

Sorry, I removed the rationale you added to that- it just plain isn't valid. The flag used in that way is purely for decoration, there is no critical commentary, and so does not meet our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adnan Ghalib

I'm not entirely sure I understand why you did this, but if you will look more closely, you will see that the notice on this page IS a notice for AfD, which says Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry if I seemed snippy. We've been trying to get this article deleted and after we waited the 5 days on prod, found out it needed to go AfD. It's frustrating. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab Case

I've seen your request for informal mediation for the article Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning. This would be my second case, but if you'd like, I'd be happy to be the mediator. --Slartibartfast1992 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Fine. It's embarassing to have to leave this case because I look like an idiot in my last case, but whatever, I'd do the same in your place. I was hoping to start today until I saw your message. --Slartibartfast1992 19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't dissapoint you. But I have to do some homework now, so, if you don't mind, I'll probably take the case up tomorrow, and start researching then. Thakns again, --Slartibartfast1992 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Onto the case itself

To my understanding, the dispute is whether DDD jobs apply mostly to immigrants or actually have no correlation as to whether the worker in said job is an immigrant or not. Is this correct? --Slartibartfast1992 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. So the dispute is whether the term itself should be covered in the article or whether 3D jobs should be covered. To my understanding, there is no 3K article though. Well, a logical answer to this would be to have a section dedicated to the term (origin etc.) and have the rest of the article dedicated to 3D jobs themselves. Does anybody not agree with this in the discussion? --Slartibartfast1992 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and move this discussion into the discussion section of the case page, if you don't mind, since it's getting confusing. --Slartibartfast1992 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)P.S.:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-19 Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning

[edit] Other Subsection

I don't see why you're so frustrated. All I'm doing is reminding the both of you (mostly Granite though) to cite sources, which is, to my understanding, what you've been trying to get done in the article. I've reminded Granite on his talk page about this, and have told him that anybody (including you) can delete any text that is not cited by a source, unless obvious.

I have said this on the case page, only to find you're frustrated and irritable for no apparent reason. I found in this edit something I find offensive and directed at me (...written by 15 year olds and cranks...), as a response to my honest efforts at solving the problem you're having at Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning. Would you care to explain what I'm doing wrong? --Slartibartfast1992 22:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I've already had a person do this whole overly dramatic "I've had it with you, I leave this article, do whatever you want with the article" thing on my last case, but at least the other person had some reasons to do so.

I'm still waiting for a response. --Slartibartfast1992 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh, that still doesn't justify an attack based on my age. And, FYI, I'm doing my best efforts now to explain to him, politely, that I see no correlation between Taylorism and DDD, and that his reference says nothing about this. If you're not going to help me, I'll finish this myself. --Slartibartfast1992 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, since people have made that rash assumption before. --Slartibartfast1992 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falafel

Just FYI: posted a response to you here to clarify the situation for you. M1rth (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SU WikiProject

I'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re frustration

re my response to your comment, I'm serious, I'd like to try to help out if you want to point me towards an article that needs more eyes. Dlabtot (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 21 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Togian White-eye , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 12:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I'm the author of the article Myrzakulov equations and I'm not the author of these equations. But I would like ask you to keep this my article. Ngn 92.46.65.69 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Go away with your self-promoting canvassing. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect?

Thank you for your question on my page about whether I would consider doing something to make my username not red. I didn't know my red username was a red flag that brands me as someone not serious; you're the first person to tell me that. It's an interesting question, but strikes me oddly, as I would hope you (or anyone who edits at Wikipedia for that matter) would be intelligent and unprejudiced enough to be able to judge my comments and edits on their merit, rather than dismissing them out of hand as coming from a vandal or (I forget what other appellations you mentioned) simply on the basis of the color of my username. Actually, I think I may keep it just like it is, even having been warned. A great number of people have treated me well and taken me seriously in spite of my being branded with scarlet letters; if I keep the red letters, then I'll be able to tell who values me for the value of my contributions and who would value me only if I took on protective coloring. I'd prefer to work with the former and avoid the latter. Thank you. (In Proud Red Letters) Woonpton (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took your message to heart and did the redirect, and then I came to leave you another message to see if I did it right, and already I see my username on the message above is blue, so I guess I must have copied and pasted the instructions correctly. I still don't understand why personalizing one's user space makes one appear to be a more serious editor, since the user space doesn't have anything to do with one's contributions to the project; it seems more like a myspace kind of thing to me, and since I'm not much of a myspace kind of person, it just hadn't occurred to me to do anything with it. Anyway, thanks for alerting me (although I'll miss my bright red name; I rather liked it.) Woonpton (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthrosexual

Can you please help prevent this article from being deleted by send me or adding the sources you mentioned when you spoke your opinion on the AfD page.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)