Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:58, 4 October 2006

Music genres: darkwave

why are you remarking that stuff about dance music? I do not dislike dance music, and I believe that music is music, and everyone is free to listen and/or to dance to any kind of music. Did you know that in some discos in early-mid 1980s we used to dance even with Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees and other acts of the same scene? Could you please check "my" new article Danse Society? Feel free to use the "Email this user" facility here if you think so. Cheers :-D . --Dr. Who 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you just think "music is music" and don't even know what "dance" music means, quit trying to update genre pages. Donnacha 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that most of music genres articles here are so poorly and badly written, and I will never waste my time with trying to fix them; I joined some talks becouse I am trying to understand wikipedians' mental schemes and strategies, that's all. Actually, I am not interested at all in the article "Darkwave" , I do not even like the word itself, and I guess that "electrogoth" is a more suitable word.Dr. Who 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'll like the criticism bit I put in then. And I'm definitely not a "wikipedian", I'm a pro who stumbled across such awful inaccuracies that I felt compelled to change them. Donnacha 23:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that much of your criticism has reasonable roots, but the other two users have also many good points. If you are going to ask me to vote for deletion of Darkwave, well, I'm neutral. I didn't live in UK those days (early-mid 1980s).Dr. Who 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I never once disagreed with what they said about the original use of the term, I was arguing for proper reflection of the last 15 years of usage. The article now, finally, reflects the multiple uses fairly well. Donnacha 00:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Dr. Who 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Making you aware of the 3 revert rule. You've made 3 reverts at Amnesty International since 23:27 of September 3rd. Another revert by 23:27 of September 4th and you will be in violation of the 3 revert rule and you will be blocked. Here, here and here are the reverts. --Woohookitty 09:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Mr POV continues to push his anti-arms control position, and I'm the one who's wrong? Where's the investigation into the charge on the Anarchism talk page that Mr Whisky is a banned user recreated? Donnacha 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No you are misreading my comments. We have a 3 revert rule. If you get blocked for violating it, it is not an indictment of what you are saying. It's just saying that you have violated a policy. And who Whiskey is isn't what this is about. If you want to pursue that avenue, be my guest. You can always request a checkuser. That's your right. But don't revert until later on tonight or else you will be blocked. --Woohookitty 09:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior on here and what you are actually saying are 2 different things. I have no opinion on what you are saying. But I do have an opinion on our rules and what's acceptable and the 3RR is pretty set in stone. Letting the comments of other users sit there for awhile isn't going to hurt anything. --Woohookitty 09:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

If you notice, I didn't act on Whiskey's comments outside of protecting the article, which I'm not even sure he wanted. And secondly, I rescinded the block, which means that I decided that the block was in error. So it's a moot point at this point. I do wish that you, Good Intentions, Whiskey and everyone else in the heat of that article would just step away from WP for a few days and cool off. You aren't doing yourselves or the article any good by continuing to snipe at each other. -Woohookitty 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

email

Donnacha, I sent you an email. You could have just sent me one because my email address is right on my page. Whiskey Rebellion 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Class Conflict

I already did, last week sometime i believe. solidarity, Blockader 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Theory of knowledge

"It's actually not so much an anarchist issue as a basic journalistic issue. Firstly, groups cannot have beliefs, only individuals. Secondly, you can never be sure what anyone believes, all you know is what they say. Thus, it is correct to use says, argues, advocates, but believes is unverifiable (on another tangent, states implies a slightly authoritarian slant and claims or alleges imply that it's not true). Ditto beliefs, philosophy is a better term as a philosophy is put forward, while beliefs are personal. Donnacha 11:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)"

How can what a person advocates be more or less verifiable than a belief. Either way i cant say whether or not the person is really stating his/her oppinion. The person might as well be telling something thats not her/his opponion, when he/she advocates some oppinion as well as when he/she states her/his beliefs. Essentially the thoughts of a person is private, it doesnt matter if its a belief or an oppinion (something a person might advocate). Essentially what a person believes and what a person might advocate is identical. Second how can you seperate what a person says from what the person believes as you would only know of a persons beleif from what he/she says. You might say that a person can tell you (she/he can say to you) what she/he believes, advocates and what arguments he/she has to back up these oppinions. Argumentation is yet another story. You might state your belief or what you advocate in themselves (i think X), but stating arguments without one of these two is meaningless. You cannot argue without having something to argue for or against. And about it being a basic journalistic issue. It might be, i dont know, but i know that its a fundamental issue of philosophy, stretching back as far as Plato, Descartes and all who might want to know anything. Do you know of the classical theory of knowledge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Theory_of_Knowledge_%28IB_course%29

--Fjulle 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thought i might as well put my answer too you here, instead of in the bottom of the page. First a quote from you: "My acceptance of anarchist ideas are on the same level - I don't believe in anarchism, I accept it as the most persuasive of all ideologies based on my own experience of human nature and personal reality tunnel." Theres a difference betwen believing what you know about anarchism and believing in what anarchism wants to accomplice. Isnt what you mean this: You know, from your experiences etc. etc., anarchism to be the best bet for a better society (most akin to human nature, and yourself). From what you write about anarchism id say you believe anarchism to be the best bet for a better society, simply because you argue thats something you know to be true (thats its the best bet). Arguments (that people says so to speak) you can verify, but if those who give them dont believe the truth of what the arguments back up, why even care, because its obviously false? Therefore, anybody who argues for anything, could be said to at least believing in what he/she argues for. Peoples beliefs are verifiable because their arguments are. --Fjulle 11:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Defintions, aye, but its quite important what we make of the words. If we put my statement (That knowing without believing in the truth of what you think you know is absurd) together with R.A.W.'s statement that "belief is the death of intelligence" it would seem to imply (i assume he is right for the time being, as well as i assume iam right as well) that everybody who thinks they know something, and therefore believe in it, are death as far as intelligence is concerned. Dont you think R.A.W. means that if you hold on to a belief that is very doubious, fx theres no arguments in favor for it, or the arguments can easily be refuted and turned to back up some different belief, you're not thinking. In this way i agree with you (and R.A.W.), and so would almost any philosopher of knowledge id guess. From my point of view, excactly because belief and justification fit so well together to form a concept of knowledge, belief can be changed if the justification for the original belief is changed. Ofcourse there are people whose beliefs are irrational, excactly because they cant change them when they no longer can justify them (fx most counscious religious people, and people who takes ordinary common-sense as their beleif without being skeptical). But that doesnt mean theres not a way of believing and being able to change it when facts wieght against your beleifs. --Fjulle 12:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I want to apologize for jumping on you about AI. I'm still not real thrilled about it, but on the other hand, I don't think I knew enough about the mess at Anarchism to comment, so I shouldn't have commented. Anyway, if you spot another possible wolfstar sock, let me know. I have (way too much) experience with these POV socks that never go away. --Woohookitty 11:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 209.115.235.179 isn't Whiskey. It's AOluwatoyin, another lovely blocked user I keep running into. But I still appreciate you taking that ridiculous notice off. Thank you. --Woohookitty 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

AOluwatoyin has used 209 and 207 in the past which is why I'm thinking this is him. And with the blocked IP, he hit LGagnon's page. I don't think Thewolfstar has any history with LGagnon. AOluwatoyin does. Anyway, I wish they'd both go away together and leave us all alone. :) --Woohookitty 01:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And actually, I was wrong. Wolfstar put the box up and then AOluwatoyin's sock added to it! I do wonder how I attract these yahoos. --Woohookitty 05:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

whoops

I know I saw someone else refer to you as a she, so I just assumed you were. I've never heard the name Donnacha before, but Donna is a female name, so I thought it probably was too. Well, I guess I could have just taken a closer look at your user page when I took that crap off too! Ungovernable Force 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Very true and very funny

"If they didn't use the term anarchist, then they're not anarchists. Stop with the Mormon-esque post-humous conversion." Bishonen | talk 12:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

RE: Cheers

She (Thewolfstar) does this every time one of her socks is busted. Donnacha 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem: did seem a bit odd! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethereal Bands

I added a few bands to the list, but I will be adding a ton more later when I have the chance. JanderVK

Communism article

Despite my previous disagreement with you at the communism talk page (about the historical influence of anarcho-communism), I am not opposed to your expanding the article to include more information about anarcho-communism; I simply wanted to ensure proportionality in the lead. Just wanted to let you know, in case you wanted to work on it. -- WGee 02:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Vision Thing -- 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)