Talk:T. Anthony/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Athena archive. So named because I've ended up with two "8's." I'm actually not that big a fan of the Re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, but I watch it some and the eight's are one of the few characters on it I kind of like. Besides it was the first "multiple 8" reference I could think of.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Earlier archives

--T. Anthony (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This list

Yeah, I keep ferreting out peoples' lists of articles to be made and then making them. Bad habit, but it keeps me busy when I'm bored at work. I usually go for the lowest-hanging fruit; the stuff I've done happened to be things that had listings on Allmusic or entries in books I have in the house. Always so much more to do... Chubbles (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Most lists I'm making are based on what's in other language Wikipedias so that might also make it relatively easy. Although I use music sources too. Either way thanks, it's nice to see some interest.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
NB...Zeze hadn't been around; I contested the prod and asked for its restoration at DRV. Chubbles (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool, good job.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My copy of your list

I hadn't meant for that to be a fixed list of things that aren't here anymore; it was a worksheet from which I could find things to do. Honestly, you're so good at digging up needed articles that I can't possibly keep up with it, so I'm writing off that list what interests me and what is easy, and then scuttling it. Chubbles (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I was quite flattered that you'd even bother to tell you the truth. Heck I wondered why I was even doing it. My first motivation might have been residual irritation with English-language Wikipedia. Kind of a way to say "look at all these significant people you ignore." In particular some of the other lists I did have former world-leaders, queen-consorts, founders of moderately large African religions, etc.
Then it just became fun to look through award-winners and people in multiple non-English Wikis. Plus with music I'm interested in old and foreign stuff. I like music that can "take me", in a sense, to eras and places I may never see on my own. In a few cases that has meant including some who were previously deleted, but in my case I do believe in notability standards. I just feel that speedy or prod deletions at times have unfairly taken out older or foreign musicians who actually meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). (Meaning they won a major national award or were bestsellers) In some cases this is because the article was just badly done, but in other cases I think it's frankly that North Americans under age 40 are way dominant so if they haven't heard of it they're likely to just want to toss it. Long ago when I created something on Jutta Hipp it almost got deleted even though there's an award named for in Germany. If I hadn't intervened it may have been deleted.
Anyway I'm rambling, thanks for your interest.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, that's it. The one thing that gets me more than anything else is when I see other wikipedias having better coverage of American/British/Canadian/Australian/etc. music than the English wiki does. One of these days I'm going to start machine-gunning that US jazz list. Maybe today, even, if I get bored enough. Chubbles (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I might be exaggerating the situation due to some annoyances I've had at Wikipedia. Mostly those were over articles about religious figures, but on occasion I'd get "speedy delete" notices on musicians that seemed to clearly meet notability standards. (As in they had a hit on the charts that track their genre or won some prestigious award in it) Still I also find many Spanish musicians that are only in the German Wikipedia for example. Also in a few cases the American musicians might not be in our Wikipedia because they spent much of their adult lives in Europe. That happened in jazz some, although admittedly it didn't happen in country music much so far as I know.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Many of the country articles are written by an enthusiast named Waylon on the German wiki and User:The yodeling cowboy here. Chubbles (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
That explains it. I wondered what was going on with that.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red-linked world in the news

Mohammed Rabbae nl:Mohamed Rabbae urged non-violence concerning Fitna (film). So far Dutch Muslims have in fact responded peacefully.[1]--T. Anthony (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Middellijn nl:Paul Middellijn discusses Surinamese language in an East Coast rag.[2]--T. Anthony (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Exiled Swazi opposition leader Gabriel Mkhumane is shot dead.[3]--T. Anthony (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


A book by John Huddy about Jose Vigoa becomes something of a hit.[4][5] Vigoa's 2000 rampage caused him notice in Clark County, Nevada.[6]--T. Anthony (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lent

I'm hoping to at least quit for Lent. If I'm lucky I won't have the urge to return when Easter comes. However until Ash Wednesday I might be slightly more active.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It is very hard to avoid Wikipedia

Hello T. Anthony. I saw your user page and I noticed that you are a critic of Wikipedia. However, is it possible to avoid Wikipedia? I don't think so. There are so many articles. It is the biggest encyclopedia. There are problems with Wikipedia-it is very open, there are POV-pushers, good editors can get blocked, etc. However, you just cannot avoid Wikipedia. I also think that many rules should change on Wikipedia. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I did add "in principle." In principle I think Wikipedia is a terribly flawed idea. Even in practice I think it does more harm than good. However in practice I also think it's probably going to stay around for some time and any effort to boycott will take many years to succeed if it ever would. In principle I still think a boycott is worth a shot, but there isn't enough momentum yet to make it really useful. So it just represents a hope for a world without Wikipedia. Also having it on my page is a conversation piece. I've done much better at boycotting Yahoo!, which I forbid myself from using after they helped the Chinese government imprison some dissident or other. That boycott is also meaningless, but as it's more solidly grounded in a kind of moral principle I've been firmer on it.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nun

Hi. I noticed your previous work on the article Nun. We are trying to build consensus as to whether or not the article has NPOV. One editor has placed a neutrality tag on the article and objects to its removal. Would you mind having a look at the article (Nun) and leaving your opinion on the talk page (Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Anti-Islam sentiment

Please don't indiscriminately go around removing entries from Anti-Islam sentiment saying other categories are sufficient. They have been included with reliable sources and consensus, there is no limit to the number of categories you can put an article in. thestick (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have went too far, but I'm not "indiscriminately removing." There are legitimate concerns on having it on articles of living people. In the other case it's unclear from the article if Jihad Watch is anti-Islam blog or is simply against one form of Islam. Which could get into a whole other issue, like Muslims who are anti-Sufi or Anti-Wahhabi, but anyway there was some method to my "madness."--T. Anthony (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh well

I didn't know about the rule on talk deals, but I had kind of abandoned "Missing Africans", "Missing Awards and their winners", and "Missing articles on notable women" anyway. No need to keep pointing out omissions of English Wikipedia or trying to improve the place using them. In retrospect though I wished I'd copied a few names so I could move them to Miscellany. Oh well. I might look for some women and Africans to add to Miscellany though.

I don't feel like looking through the awards though as that list never got much attention. I do remember the Gumshoe Awards (de) (no) as it was a later addition. Also the Troféu Imprensa pt:Troféu Imprensa and the Gold medal of the CNRS fr:Médaille d'or du CNRS. My mind's blanking on others.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz

Well, it took me almost two months, but I feel a little better about the state of American jazz on this site now. Most of those German blue-links have been created; the ones that aren't really do seem to be, for the most part, very minor folks (I've noticed that Toolittle, author of some 2500 articles on the German wiki, doesn't adhere particularly strictly to anything we'd recognize as WP:RS or WP:MUSIC). I'll probably be tanking my jazz worksheet in the very near future, just thought you should know since you link to it. Chubbles (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's great. I've appreciated the good job you've done with that over the months I've been back. I'll remember to de-link.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Mystery fiction and women

Looking through Wikipedia seems somewhat poor with mystery writers. de:Anthony Award appears to be better than Anthony Award. Although even in German they don't do that well. Authors I see prominently at my local bookstore, like Jacqueline Winspear, are nowhere on either Wikipedia. In a related area women and things of interest to women also tend to be short-shrifted. Life Is Beautiful is number 14 on women's list at IMDB, but not in men's top-50. It won Academy Awards. Seven (film) is number 29 without being in women's top-50. Guess which one has more information? (In the interest of full disclosure I was lukewarm on "Life is Beautiful" and haven't seen Seven)--T. Anthony (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Say, do you know anything about trumpeter/cornetist Bernie Young? Name keeps coming up, probably article-worthy but I haven't much information on him. Chubbles (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest about that. Most of the time I don't know anything about the people I create articles on until I actually start the creating. There's exceptions to that, but usually I just see a name on a list or in a foreign Wikipedia than do a Google search. Doing that I don't find much on Young, but this says he worked in "Arthur Sims Creole Band." However "Arthur Sims" leads to a New Zealand cricketer. Anyway happy "hunting."--T. Anthony (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly "the exceptions to that" I remember have been more in Celtic or world music. I liked what I'd heard of Nóirín Ní Riain on a lullaby CD and I own a CD by Talitha MacKenzie so started articles on those two. In jazz I think the main ones I knew of beforehand were foreign. I created an article on Eddie Rosner because he was a subject of a presentation on Soviet jazz at a history conference I attended. I also heard Dorothy Masuka on a "Women in Africa" CD.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletions of lists I made

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Evolution applied in practice"

In this edit (since striken as off-topic, but not disavowed) you claim "Well you know excepting those cases where scientists works or publications lead the way or supported such genocide intellectually. See Eugen Fischer. Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Fritz Lenz, Alfred Ploetz, Ernst Rüdin, or Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer." I would point out that none of these articles mention that the scientists listed were experts on evolution, or that their eugenic claims were in any way based upon evolutionary mechanisms -- rather they appear to be based on heredity and the science of genetics. Further there is no evidence of a direct link between either Darwin's original theory, or the modern evolutionary synthesis, and Nazi genocidal racism.

On the other hand, the Nazis displayed Martin Luther's anti-Semitic On the Jews and Their Lies during the Nuremberg rallies and the Old Testament contains numerous accounts of divine, or divinely mandated, acts of genocide -- providing a 'Godly' seal of approval for the practice. HrafnTalkStalk 12:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Lutheranism, which I'm not necessarily a fan of as such, existed for centuries without anything like the Holocaust resulting. Luther's own ideas on Jews were mostly not applied in his lifetime and even they mostly revolved around expulsion or forced conversion more than genocide. The idea of Jews as a race, hence irredeemable by baptism, was not plausible before the advent of modern biology. (More Linnaeus than Darwin tis true) In any event Lapouge, looking up more on him, was in fact influenced by his understanding of evolution.[7][8][9] As his own article essentially implies. Now I quite agree that these are cases of people misreading what Darwinism would mean on a social level, but still my point was that science can be used to provide pretext for genocide or violence. Action T4 would've been an admittedly better example as it comes almost entirely from quasi-science/pseudoscience rather than anything in Judaeo-Christian tradition. Still even with the original example blaming the Old Testament/Tanakh, when we were discussing the Holocaust of Jews, is almost mindblowingly ironic. In any event I'm not going to get into a huge argument on the matter on my page. I was originally going to delete any such messages unread, but I did not know if I had warned you of that and felt you needed an answer.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Positivism

I am certainly not in any positivist religion or anything. However I find small oddball religions/communities interesting so I've been expanding, and creating in one case, articles on Positivist churches. Also I find the idea of a church that basically deems the "human spirit" and "altruism" to be the only higher powers amusingly peculiar.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dominating

If you believe I am dominating the discussion on that talk page, I think you have not witnessed "domination". I do not want to get into any unnecessary rancor. I want to make sure we are all on the same page if we are editing together. I want to help those who do not understand policy to understand it better.

I just repeat the interpretation of policy as I was instructed by editors like User:Silence, User:Doc Tropics, User:KillerChihuahua, and so on. Is that interpretation wrong? Well, maybe, but someone would have to show me why it is that several dozen senior editors and senior admins on controversial articles all seem to have the wrong interpretation of the policies if they have been editing on Wikipedia for years together. Personally, I would be somewhat surprised that all these others who were my tutors and mentors were all incorrect, wouldn't you?--Filll (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do I repeat this over and over? Because I hope people will absorb it if it is stated a few different ways, and understand my position. And because I will not call for administrative sanctions unless absolutely necessary. I think we need a lenient editing environment and need to not have too punitive an environment. I believe we should not be attacking each other, but instead we should be putting our energy into editing. Am I an idealist? Too lenient? Maybe, but I can hope can't I?
By the way, did you try the exercises at the User:Filll/AGF Challenge? I am working on new exercises, so if you already tried those, then there will be more coming. It is amazing to me how some of the people who appeal most for more leniency, actually advocate far more punitive actions on these test exercises than is conventionally exercised in practice. I chalk it up to inexperience. --Filll (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdrew that message and just took out the replacement. I was maybe too hurtful and don't really want to get sucked back into that article. Although fundamentally this isn't really about the article. I think "dominating" might be too loaded of a word, but you do seem to have a strong urge to be seen as right and understood. In that thread you started by indicating your interpretation is right and alternate interpretations are misconception or confusion. Later you called someone, who's been here a year longer than you understand, "an admin who does not understand the fundamental policies." If this were an isolated moment of annoyance it'd be one thing, but you've done things like this before. This may not be rancorous, but I don't think it's unfair to say it comes off as haughty and dismissive. Perhaps you honestly don't realize it would be seen that way.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This same person has dumped on a couple of admins who have been here longer than him and have many more edits than him. And if you will note, I phrase all those statements with weasel words and caveats. I might be wrong, but if I am wrong, then all the people who have told me the "correct" interpretation of these policies are also wrong. I do not mean to be haughty and dismissive, but I do not think you understand what is going on here so you can understand a bit more. Maybe I should tell you on Skype. There is more here that meets the eye and I am trying desperately to avoid a war.--Filll (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That's all possible. Still I generally found you rather difficult to deal with and haughty. I suppose this could be my fault. I'm a bit snotty sometimes and critical of the whole concept of Wikipedia. I don't really think that's it, I think you really do come off worse than you think, but I'm often wrong. Besides what I think is not that important.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! I see on this very page that User:Hrafn went on this page due to the article as well. I've removed parts of the response relating to the idea you were alone in doing so. I was unfair to think that, And for the heck of it I just took User:Filll/AGF Challenge Multiple Choice despite saying I wasn't interested. I'm really not sure how serious I view it as the questions, at times, to be honest struck me as a tad loaded and based in an agenda.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are no right answers or wrong answers to any of those questions or exercises of course. And the "right" answers or best practices are determined by the community, not by me of course. And they are meant to be funny and semi entertaining as well.--Filll (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From list of people youngest in their field

Note: Many Wikipedians do not even know what "field" means in this context. Granted this place is by/for teenage boys to some degree, but I got a laugh out of that.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acting

[edit] Business

[edit] Directing

[edit] Literature

[edit] Politics

[edit] Religion

[edit] Sports and Games