User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| My archived talk | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Archive 1 |
Archive_18 |
Archive_35 |
|
Evidence request on Larouche
On Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux/Proposed decision, User:AndyL said: "Weed, you and Herschel have not only shared the same computers (home and office it seems) but have edited each others comments on talk pages which suggests the same person with different logins and perhaps being confused about who he has logged in as at what time." I asked him for the actual edits, he said you would have them. Unless I missed them in the mountain of already-presented evidence, they would be helpful to add if you have them. Thanks :-) - David Gerard 01:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's probably not critical, but if you do find them they'd be nice - David Gerard 02:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
IRC
If you'd like an IRC cloak please visit m:IRC_channel_cloaks for basic instructions; follow these and contact me on #wikipedia if you're done or if you have any questions. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Adminship
Would you like to be nominated for adminship? I think you would make a good one. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
User name
Nah. I was just passing the page in another context and was amused by how valiantly your POV had been pushed. You guys have done a fantastic job. Still, most of those who hold the opposite POV have gotten themselves banned! More fool them. If they really cared about the outcome, they should have been smarter. -- Zen
Conscious evolution
Thanks for letting me know. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dresden
I am not controlling the edits. I have not reverted your edits, I have edited them. In most cases I have tried to answer the questions which you have posted in line and to clarify one or two points. The biggest change I did was re-inserting the Attack which is the kernel of the article. It must have been accidently deleted it. When doing it I removed the italics on the strafing quote to fall in with the standard you are using even though I disagree with them.
Something I have wanted to do for a long time, was chop the Oxford quote up a bit and move to it to the justified section because the second half was repeated in other words already in the justified section. As you chopped it, I moved it. It was inserted in that form to placate Get-back-world-respect back in Nov 2004 see Talk:Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II/Archive_3
We have a footnote on the References because it was too much to be included in the References but it needed saying.
The use of Friedrich was to replace a weasel worded sentence which started "Some have suggested that the bombing of Dresden may have been a war crime". I am not so sure that this was a good idea given the controversy arond him (His article was not written then, and as a German he was not well read in England) perhaps we should use R.J. Rummel instead, but he is careful to say that it would be a war crime using today's laws not the laws in 1945 so he is not a good spokesperson for the "Some have suggested that the bombing of Dresden may have been a war crime" brigade.
- Please tell me, for example: why do you want the photograph to straddle the intro and the first section? It doesn't matter, but it looks ugly, and yet you revert efforts to correct it.
The first section in VERY controversial see Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 4#Straw poll so it is best left alone unless you want to run another straw poll. I happen to think it clearer like that and the photo fits neatly into the gap to the right of the Table of Contents.
- Also, you don't seem to have the dates of the bombing right. I may be wrong, of course, but I believe the first bombers took off at 6 pm on Feb 13.
Yes probably but they bombed on Feb 14. To exaggerate the point the day ARA General Belgrano was sunk is normally given the day she was sunk not as the days between the HMS Conqueror leaving and returning to port. The original plan had been for the American to bomb on the 13th but they did not. I've just noticed someone changed the days into nights in the intro (quite recently) sigh!.
BTW "it was to hamper the evacuation" of refugees not the troops.
Hope this helps. Philip Baird Shearer 21:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I had no idea that this month was the 60th anniversary of the bombing. [1]
- It may be a bit confusing discussing the editing process for Bombing of Dresden on THREE different user talk pages in addition to the article's own talk page.
- My sympathies to all. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Utilitarianism and Kant
You might be interested in this short critique of Kant's and Bentham's philosophical views:
-- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:50, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
editor
Please look at the talk page for BoDresden you editor seems to break certain characters. including "š" so that the links to Talk:Jšrg Friedrich are now broken. Philip Baird Shearer 09:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cryptic comment
Please explain what you ment @ Talk:Transhumanism#Citation_requested. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Who blocked User:Dnagod indefinately, and on what basis? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- My reply is @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Dnagod. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding
Re: Talk:Transhumanism#Dnagod, I think your comment about your education is yet another instance of making things about peopler, ather than about facts and arguments. I've studied logic my entire life, but even if we were both professors it wouldn't change anything in regards to the need to explain the obvious to one another. I assume your well meaning, but IMO you have blinders up about these particulars. Frankly I'm concerned that a lack of rigour and attention to wiki policy is resulting in an increase of intellectual dishonesty on the wikipedia. When verifiable POVs are excluded, you not only remove my reason for being here (pursuit of NPOV knowledge), but you reduce the value of the information available to us all. Knowledge is power, and censorship, no matter how well meaning, corrodes that power. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the edit count link. I have 18999 editsm and I believe this will make 19,000! Hoorah! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jewish ethnocentrism
While I disagree with the article as it stood, the term itself is in circulation and hence deserves an explanation. Redirect to this guy's book does the job. We have articles about nasty things, misconceptions, snake oil, etc.; hey, even about blood libel. This one is of the ilk. Mikkalai 06:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- MacDonald's use of the term is not representative with its use in the critical scholarship. The redirect, if there was to be one at least, should have went to Ethnocentrism. Both myself and MIRV voted for that as an interim solution. On the basis of what consesnsus was it redirected instead to Culture of Critique? El_C 08:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If Jewish ethnocentrism term is used in "critical scholarhip", then where is the article, please? If you provide your "correct" description of the notion, then a disambiguation is due. See also Talk:Culture of Critique. Mikkalai 09:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What "article" ? Please review Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism, at any rate. The VfD has been concluded, propper undeletion procedure is what seemingly is due in this case. El_C 10:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If Jewish ethnocentrism term is used in "critical scholarhip", then where is the article, please? If you provide your "correct" description of the notion, then a disambiguation is due. See also Talk:Culture of Critique. Mikkalai 09:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Abuse of admin powers by Mikkalai
Well, I suggest you start down the required steps for submitting an RFAr. I guess that means you have to try mediation first. Noel (talk) 19:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, there is no special process for dealing with admins.
- As to what happened, it's very simple: I saw the request to do something, I checked and verified that the article had been VfD'd properly (since I know nothing of the article, or the previous debate), and I then blanked and protected it. Mikkalai then used admin powers to unprotect it, and then edited it to restore the content he had just put there.
- You don't need any special power to re-create a deleted article, anyone can do that. That's why I blanked/protected it, instead of just deleting it again. Noel (talk) 20:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've protected the "deleted" version of the article. As an admin, Mikklai can circumvent that but he hasn't. If he either unprotects the article or edits it while protected he would be open to accusations of abusing his powers as an admin and could be subject to a complaint at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Use_of_administrator_privileges. I suspect he's not going to cross that line but if he does an RFC would be the first step to take. AndyL 21:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- He did unprotect the article after I protected it. See the protection log. Noel (talk) 22:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hm, I guess Noel and I both did the same thing independently. AndyL 21:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When I go to Jewish ethnocentrism I don't see any redirection, just the "no article" notice. I've noticed a bit of a time lag on some articles, perhaps your account isn't properly updating and you're still seeing what was there before (convesely, perhaps mine isn't properly updating). AndyL 21:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think there's a software glitch. Checking [2] shows that Mikkalai has not edited the article since Noel and/or myself blanked and protected it a few hours ago. If you're still seeing a redirected version it's because of a software glitch meaning the version you see from your account hasn't been upadted yet (don't know why my account has updated it for me but I don't understand the software ;). Perhaps if you log off your ISP then log back in it'll fix it (or maybe try from another browser). AndyL 22:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's also this magic spell to clear the caches on all the Wikipedia servers (in case one of them has an old copy). (Also, he did recreate the contents after I blanked it.) Noel (talk) 22:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, he hasn't since I reprotected it at 20:09, FWIW. AndyL 22:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've also noticed in a few other articles I've edited today that when I look at the articles again it looks like my edits didn't take but in fact they have which is why I think there's some sort of updating problem. AndyL 22:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents you wrote "I feel incredibly disheartened by this incident, and the lack of response to it". Well, there was a response by a number of people, for instance I deleted the re-creation once and tried to dialog with Mikkalai. He seems to have withdrawn his attempts for now, but of course it's up to you to decide if you want to pursue anything formally. -- Curps 23:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Admins have been temporarily blocked in the past, for violations of 3RR for instance, but while blocked I believe they can still do admin stuff, they just can't edit articles (apparently that's a feature and not a bug of the software). However, there was one case where an admin lost admin status as a result of arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco).
It's not that other admins refuse to act against other admins out of courtesy or perceived privilege, it's just that as far as I know we don't really have any clearly defined policies for abuse by admins (how to define it, how to deal with it). Maybe it just hasn't happened often enough. There was some discussion about that lack a while ago, I don't have a link to it, but I seem to recall User:RickK participating actively in it, perhaps you should contact him to see if anything came out of it.
I did what I thought I could do: try to prevent the page recreation and try to persuade Mikkalai to withdraw his attempts. As far as blocking or banning him, I didn't know if it's technically possible to do so, and didn't know if I had solid grounds to do so, with the lack of any clear policy. Perhaps other admins felt similarly.
I don't know if Mikkalai is a rogue admin or he just had a bad day; he doesn't seem to have any RfCs or RfArbs involving him. My personal impression is that he's been a steady contributor, and his actions today were not the norm. Nevertheless, you do have the option of pursuing RfArb, perhaps as a test case that put the need for clearer policy on the agenda (again maybe RickK might have some thoughts).
I hope you don't get discouraged from participating in Wikipedia. The admins don't constitute an old boys' network (or girls) who look down on non-admins and refuse to act against other admins. There are wide divergences of opinion among admins and even some open animosities between some as far as I can tell.
So anyway, take some time to collect your thoughts and then decide what you wish to do and whether or how you wish to pursue it. It's up to you at this point. -- Curps 02:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Admin chastisement process
Good luck with putting something together. The only thing I ask is that you not put admins in charge of it, for a long list of reasons. For one thing, the admins have a lot to deal with already, and don't need another job. Second, it's not always clear where the line is - as you can see from WP:AN/I, we often disagree on whether something is right, and I'd rather not see another source of disputation. Third, it's probably better to have an independent group, so you don't get any backscratching going on. Noel (talk) 17:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Template
I listed it on TFD because it is, as I said, hideous (i.e. large and unwieldy) and superfluous (the same function could easily be accomplished by a simple list somewhere). Feel free to vote to keep it. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 03:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Downsides of being Spacedout
I will have an update in ~3 hours. I am almost guranteed to be given stronger medications, so I will be spacedout real soon. Hilarities aside, what concerns me as virtually inevitable is that certain editors are going to exploit this vulnerability. Of course, if this whole thing ends up being a matter of a week or so, I can probably recover from such damage. If, though, it will be more, I suppose I will have more pressing issues to consider than my contributions to an online encyclopedia. By the way, I gave a facelift to the conclusion of the Bernard Williams article you authored. Did you notice? (I'm just looking for a pat on the back here, erm, with greatest humility as always, that is!) Though, I take some issues with some of final statements. Perhaps one day we'll have a collegial polemic over it – it won't accomplish much, but at least we'll be less fond of each other afterwards! All over the placely yours, El_C 14:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- I am pleased to inform you that, once the procedure –relatively minor, thankfuly– is carried out (Friday), I'll be fine and totally back to normal in a week or two (barring any complications). Thanks for your concern. I'm quite fucked up now, though (can I say fucked up on this tv channel?).
-
- All the best, El_C 07:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comments vs. pages
If you have comments about an article, could you please use the discussion page rather than posting your views to the main page? Thanks! Alba 04:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. It did seem a little out of character. Alba 04:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Log compiling in regards to Jewish ethnocentralism
For your reference, I have compilied the logs together at: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism/Logs. I can understand where Mikkalai is coming from, but I can also understand where everyone else is coming from. I am uncertain and unclear where policy stands in this regard, therefore I am not involving myself other than providing the evidence. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality re: Dresden
I like your heading change [3]. The old version sounded like a rhetorical question, i.e., only one answer (the "right" one) expected. Good work! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Cloaks
IRC user cloaks are only useful on the Freenode IRC network. You should connect to Freenode with a standard IRC client before following the instructions for registering your cloak. The commands regarding /msg nickserv et cetera should be input into your IRC client's standard text input box. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 07:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Style guide
Slim, I think the style guide is more of a guideline than a policy, but I'm not sure whether or how any distinction is meaningful. I can't remember exactly, but I think some general page about Wikipedia policies at least at one time said there were very few policies, but maybe a lot of semi-policies. Maurreen 17:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
