Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:30, 28 August 2009

It is currently 15:00 where I am

Please place any questions or comments for me at the bottom of this page. Thanks.

Archives

1 - Mostly Exra Wax, Stevertigo, and questions about Jewish articles and anti-semitism 2 - Mostly DNA and genes, WHEELER and fascism 3 - some discussion of capitalism; debates on whether Jesus existed, and the cultural and historical background for Jesus 4 - Jesus, Jesus, Jesus 5 - Cheese Dreams and Jesus; race and evolution, capitalism, circumcision 6 - BCE/CE versus BC/AD 7 - BCE/CE versus BC/AD; FT2 and Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus 8 - Jesus, Bible, anti-Semitism, Martin Luthor, and the tip of the Virago iceberg 9 10 11 12 13 - The Bible, Evolution, Filllllll, Jesus, Race, advice for new admins 14 - a lot of race and intelligence stuff 15 - Fascism, Pharisees, and Race 16 - race, ethnicity and NOR 17 September 2007 18 October & November 2007 19 December 2007 20 January-February 2008 (Figs, psychohistory, ethnicity) 21 March-April 2008, Collenthegret and Epf 22 March- May 2008, R&I, Jagz, Jews and Christians 23 24 25 26 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ping

seeders

Looks to me like the reform page may get enough folks by to work -- I added some seeder-type comments (the system is to always ask a question in order to get more comments). I think we likely should delete sections which get no activity in the next week and see if we can add some more which will get attention (this is one thing my old occupation required, to be sure). I would avoid having any Jimbo section, really. Perhaps the issue of whether articles on similar topics should conform to similar layouts? Also COI is definitely an area where no one seems happy with how it works AFAICT (with editors seeking info in order to remove other editors from an article on the basis of real or imagined COI). Collect (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Added major change for ArbCom -- hope we get response to it. Collect (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Cnilep/Culture draft

Since the section on language and culture has moved to Culture, I am going to request that the page we had been using for revisions, User:Cnilep/Culture draft, be deleted. If you would like to keep the page, or to move any content there to your own user space, please let me know. If you have no objection to deleting the page, I will request speedy deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Creationism

I'm surprised at the tone of the reaction to my post on the article Creationism. While what I wrote was perhaps colloquial, it wasn't personal - yet I get the feeling that responses are attacking me personally. I'm frankly astonished to find this coming from you, an editor I've always respected, and I hope I've misjudged the situation. PiCo (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

State

I'm sorry I disappeared a couple of weeks ago ... I was falling behind my work in the real world. I look forward to working on your suggestions in the coming weeks. 172 | Talk 23:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

This is just a friendly reminder that rollback use is only for vandalism. I am sending this in regards to this edit. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, rollback is to be used only for vandalism reverts. Please do not continue to use your rollback tool on good-faith edits. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ombudsman

Please see User:Buster7/Incivility. The discussions at WP:Civility/Poll and WP:Areas of Reform are proceeding. Lets see where they lead.--Buster7 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

Please see Talk:Judaism#.22oldest.22_claims. I'd say you were rushing a little, making me look like an newbie Misplaced Pages editor. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw your reply there. I am glad we understand each other now. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Friendly notice

Hi SL. In the light of the recent discussions about civility and how not to drive new editors away I found this dif to be below your usually high standard, as it seems to imply that new comers have no business meddling in policy and that their arguments weigh less than those of more experienced editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance

I closed this AfD as delete: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Futuristic Leland could you delete it and it's talk page for me please?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you also delete Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Futurepop please? ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence

We need to do something about this article it screams to the high heavens for being conformed to NPOV, FRINGE and UNDUE. more than five different editors have expressed this concern but have been fended off with non-arguments by a single article owner. Lets do somethign about it - for example starting by moving it to Ashkenazi intelligence hypothesis or Ashkenazi intelligence theory and balancing the articles points by moving the criticisms into the main text and presenting the mainstream viewpoint in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Maunus' suggestion that the word theory be added to the article title is a great one. This would make it clear that the article isn't actually about the intelligence of Ashkenazim but about the theory. There indeed needs to be more references to specific criticism of the theory itself without turning the article into a debate about race & intelligence, but this is more down to a lack of edits than to POV. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to clarify that when I tag the article as POV it does not mean that I think the writer of the article necessarily has this POV - in only means that the article comes off biased towards this POV for lacking the opposing viewpoint. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not a theory, and does not corrspond to the scientific sense of "theory," so, no. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? It is of course not falsifiable, but it is a theory linking observed facts (whether we agree that they are observed interpreted correctly) to a causal framework intended to explain them (natural selection) (whether or not we agree that they explain the facts) - if theory is not the right term then what is? (certainly not hypothesis as it would have to be testable). I mean conspiracy theories are not testable, verifiable or falsifiable but they are theories nonetheless. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Futurepop

I saw that you deleted Futurepop supposedly as per the AfD; I don't think 3 deletes (including the nominator) versus 2 opposed (including myself, I'll grant) makes for consensus to delete. I'd like to merge the article into another larger article as per the discussion, but deleting the current text (and all history) outright makes that more difficult now. - Korpios (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I originally closed the AfD (I was not entitled to as I am not an admin - but I had misunderstood the policy on non-admin-closures). The article was relisted and Slrubenstein closed it as delete - presumably with the same rationale. I closed it as delete because an AfD is not a vote but instead weighs the arguments against eachother. In this case I judged that there was not enough usage documented in reliable sources to sustain stand alone article. I did not exlcude the possibility of merging content into a main article such as Electronic Body Music or Electronic Music. and I added that If anyoned wished to perform the merger after the article having been deleted ask an admin to restore the article to your userspace. Sorry for the confusion.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Futurepop

Howdy, I'm wondering about your decision to delete futurepop. There were two deletes, one merge and one keep on the AfD. a) I feel that the points I raised were at least to a certain extent valid and meriting discussion before any final action was taken. Can I ask why you don't agree and didn't express your thoughts on why in the discussion? b) Even if you disagree, with there being thoughts of a merge in the discussion, would it not have been more appropriate to stay any deletion so content could be moved and backed up by the sources I referenced? Thanks for your time. --MilkMiruku (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see my explanation above. It all boils down to my misunderstanding of when non-admins are allowed to close.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Slrubenstein - can you please undelete the article and reopen the AfD or start it afresh? Thanks --MilkMiruku (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reply :) --MilkMiruku (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to continue editing at Ancient Egyptian race controversy...

... please comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued. Thank you. Zara1709 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Slrubenstein, that I did not label Zara as "topic-ban Zara". I was suggesting to ROUX that actually topic-banning Zara is a possible solution to her threat to start an edit war, in response to ROUX's suggestion to topic-ban me instead. I’m sure that when you read that entry carefully you will see this, and will appreciate that there is a world of difference between my sentence and your assumption. I appreciate your efforts to help the article, and I generally agree with your various suggestions, but please don't jump to conclusions about my maturity or my motives - this causes unjust reputational damage. Wdford (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted - thanks for that. My frustration is actually more with admins who thunder in with bans and blocks, shouting "troll" and "POV-pusher", without making any effort to actually understand the issues at heart. Thanks for taking the time - see you on the talk page. Wdford (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne

I think there's definitely a reasonable point to be made here, that the beginnings of the HRE are quite confused. Obviously JHK has way more knowledge and experience with these issues than I do, so I want to be cautious about this, but I do think that people whose specialties are too close to a subject sometimes can have problems with perspective, and I think this issue is a case where JHK had that. Obviously, there's tons of reasons to view Charlemagne's kingdom as different from that of his successors. Certainly Berengar I and Otto I did not rule the same state in any reasonable way. As such, I think it's very valid to say the Holy Roman Empire, as a kind of permanent union of the Frankish successor states of Germany and Italy, or, later, as an alternative term for Germany alone, did not come into existence until 962.

That being said, the earlier line of western emperors from Charlemagne to Berengar I presents a problem. There is no common term in use for them. In lists in general reference sources and the like, they are normally referred to as Holy Roman Emperors. I think the article Holy Roman Emperor does a reasonably good job with this issue, in terms of listing them (because, where else are you going to list them?), but also noting why their inclusion is problematic. I think that the idea of the Holy Roman Empire as beginning with Charlemagne is fairly widely held, even if wrong, and that, moreover, the idea that Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor is much harder to dispel - certainly the title he used was the same as the title used by Charles V seven centuries later, neither of them calling themselves "Holy Roman Emperor." In terms of this article, I think a statement should be made in the introduction along the lines of:

Although Charlemagne was the first western ruler to be crowned emperor by the Pope, the Holy Roman Empire as such cannot be seen to have begun until the coronation of the German king Otto I as Emperor in 962.

to replace the sentence

The first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was Otto I, crowned in 962.

In terms of further development, I don't know that I can make any commitments. But do let me know if you think that statement is acceptable. I think acknowledging the question is a better way to go than pretending it doesn't exist. john k (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

All the Holy Roman Emperors called themselves "Roman Emperor" or simply "Emperor". None of them ever called themselves "Holy Roman Emperor." You can find that there has, in fact, been some dispute over whether wikipedia should even use that term - it is not used in German, where they say Römisch-Deutscher Kaiser ("Roman-German Emperor"). Even this is not the official title, but simply a mash-up of the two titles of Roman Emperor and German King. My understanding is that Otto's crowning was functionally identical to Charlemagne's crowning. The distinction was that the kingdom Otto already ruled was different from the kingdom Charlemagne already ruled. Certainly from relatively early on the Holy Roman Emperors themselves came to the idea that Charlemagne was their predecessor. Thus Emperor Charles IV in the 14th century was clearly numbering himself from the Carolingians (Charles I was Charlemagne, Charles II was Charles the Bald, Charles III was Charles the Fat), and viewing them as his predecessors. There was a tradition that the Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire was Charlemagne's crown (it wasn't). Obviously there was also a tradition of being successor to the Roman Emperors, but it is wrong, I think, to equate those two traditions - the latter was pretty clearly a self-consciously antiquarian one, an attempt to link the modern state to the ancient one. The former was believed to be a historically accurate one - a real belief that Charlemagne was their direct predecessor. This belief is one which more or less persisted well after the Empire's demise, and which can still be seen in Bryce, writing 100 years ago, in the Shorter Cambridge Medieval History of 50 years ago, and in general works of reference today, including Encarta. It seems important enough to be mentioned in the article. I'm not sure what you mean about a "sop to a particular political position." Are there any currently existing political positions which care about the Holy Roman Empire? If you mean the question of whether Charlemagne was German or French, that seems irrelevant to me - I think he should be listed both in a list of Kings of France and in a list of Holy Roman Emperors, and mentioned in discussions of the history of both countries. Furthermore, the pre-Ottonian emperors include some clearly non-German figures, like Charles the Bald and Guy of Spoleto. john k (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian Zionism in the UK

This is a bit of a mess again. Shedloads of unverifiable citations, questionable and perhaps irrelevant sources, redundant sentences, etc. Same editor you've encountered before. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus article (Roman Empire ==> Israel)_Israel)-2009-08-16T18:29:00.000Z">

Thanks for fixing this. It needed the change! So according to the way it was, I guess I just call my travel agent and say, "Two Economy for the Roman Empire." With appreciation, Afaprof01 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)_Israel)"> _Israel)">

Hello

A whole lot of things happened at the same time so that's why no news. Lost access to my e-mail addy too. Will let you know as soon as I get a new addy.

Ramdrake.

Please e-mail me at jgoyer01 at gmail dot com. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism

FYI: The Four Deuces (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of DEs and their effect is to prevent the improvement of articles and to discourage editors who actually have expertise in various subjects. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am following the procedures and have posted to the Wikiquette alert notice board. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sin

May I point out to you that

1. You violated the 3 revert rule with your last revert on Christianity and Judaism. I do not plan to take you to the court for it, but still, for the record. Just in case you plan on making a habit out of it.
2. You made a personal attack when you posted "Debresser has two problems". But using good faith I'll assume you meant "The arguments of Debresser are problematic for two reasons" etc. Likewise, your advise to "look up the word inconsistent in the dictionary" is denegrating. I hope you will be able to reply more courteously next time.
3. It was inconsiderate of you to point out my mistake in the word "destructed". I am, after all, not a native English speaker. Frankly, I think a compliment on my English would be more in order than exasperating at the lack of it.

This is on the personal side. If you'd like to, feel free to write me on my talkpage. Concerning your arguments, please see the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I did not violate 3 RR
2. I made no personal attack. Every reader will understand - it is clear from context as well as common English usage - that "Debresser has two problems" is an elipsis for "Debresser has two problems with this article." I make this point explicitly clear by then going on to list the two problems Debresser has (with the article). There is nothing personal here.
3. If English is not Debresser's native language, I have two bits of advice: (1) do not edit Misplaced Pages when English language usage and style are the issues (which is the case here, i.e. Debresser's misunderstanding the passage he keeps deleting), and (2) I would hope there is a Misplaced Pages in Debresser's language that he can comfortably edit, without risking deleting someone's work or getting into an argument because he does not understand the language adequately. Debresser wants me to compliment him on his knowledge of English. But I am neither complimenting nor criticizing him - none of this is personal. This is only about improving Misplaced Pages articles. Debressers incomplete knowledge of English is a barrier here, but by implication he has a native language and I am sure can make very prodductive edits there. Debresser does not like my pointing out the mistake with "destructed." He does not get my point, which is that if he can make this kind of simple mistkae - and obviously does not take the time to check his writing against an English dictionary, even though he now confesses that English is not his native language and that his knowledge is imperfect, then we should not be surprised when he misreads other people's edits, on article pages or talk pages. This is not a personal attack, just following through the implications of what Debresser himself acknowledges. I have no personal feelings about Debresser. I just want good Misplaced Pages articles, and based on what Debresser writes here, I imagine there is another language Misplaced Pages he could edit with real satisfaction and success. Wouldn't that be a good thing?Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you did violate the 3 revert rule. please check the pertaining policy. And you continue here with your denegrating remarks. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would sincerely regret it if I had violated the 3RR - but I have gone over it again and still do not see it. Perhaps you can provide the edit diffs? I honestly am not trying to be a pain in the ass but I just do not see it. I really have checked. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my error. Debresser (talk)

Areas for Reform, WP:WHEEL

Instead of seeking a change to WP:WHEEL, you may want to consider developing ethical principles instead: Misplaced Pages:Areas for Reform/Ethical principles for administrators. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dinkytown

Although I don't have any strong views one way or the other about the section Dinkytown (talk · contribs) disputes in EGE. I see that they are acting intemperately and not waiting for responses. I am afraid this is behaviour which, if continued, will probably lead to a block. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)