Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phil Boswell (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 30 May 2006 (→Ann Furedi and BPAS merge: check the history: there was a template there at all times once you added one…). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pat Quinn/ behavior

because it was the British spelling on a mostly american sports league. --NeverLogic 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine, it doesn't really matter. I wasnt sure if those spellings were exclusively British or canadian too. --NeverLogic 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Simpsons song list

Hello, I'll be happy to try and use that list you mention, thanks. Dirk Diggler Jnr

Could you mail it plz? thanks so much  :) Dirk Diggler Jnr

Done. And I edited your post to remove your email addy.--Anchoress 15:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Female sexuality" article

Regarding female sexuality: this article is really only a stub. It's intended to be a start of expanding the human sexuality coverage, keeping human sexuality as an overview of all of the forms of human sexuality, and using female sexuality and male sexuality to work on the aspects which are typically more specific to women and men respectively (but without, I hope, resorting to mere stereotyping). It's a huge topic, and the current version is rather poor -- please feel free to revise it as you see fit. A start on male sexuality would be nice, too. -- The Anome 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not equate the publication of a cartoon with sexual assault; it's an insult to people who have endured that particular physical violation.--Anchoress 01:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Anchoress. Thank you for your kind words and the barnstar. I appreciate it. It is encouraging me to continue in the efforts I was making. Peace. Metta Bubble 10:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The following paragraph contains sentence fragments I can't decipher:

The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, called it "cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression," according to the official WAM news agency. "The repercussions of such irresponsible acts will have adverse impact on international relations." In Tunisia, Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, president of the Islamic Organization for Education, Science and Culture (the Islamic world's counterpart to UNESCO) called the drawings "a form of racism and discrimination that one must counter by all available means." He said, "It's regrettable to state today, as we are calling for dialogue, that other parties feed animosity and hate and attack sacred symbols of Muslims and of their prophet," said also Jordan's largest circulation daily, government-run Al-Rai, said the Danish government must apologize.

It's hard to check since the citations seem to be out of order. I'd fix them myself but I really, really, really don't know how.--Anchoress 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

that is the source : --Unfinishedchaos 14:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus as "he who must not be named"

Curious: Where did you hear that In the Jewish annals of notable Jews, Jesus is referred to as 'He Who Must Not be Named'? I've never heard this referred to before, and Google doesn't seem to corroborate much either. Do you know what 'annals' make the reference? -Joshuapaquin 02:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never read it myself, I heard it from a girlfriend.--Anchoress 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a Judaic tradition that the name of God is "ineffable" and "not to be read aloud" (http://en.wikipedia.org/Yahweh)... Christianity is fond of adopting Jewish concepts and applying them to Jesus, as Christians believe that the expected Jewish Messiah was actually Jesus and therefore they have a right to culturally appropriate Judaic beliefs. By the way, thanks for the feedback on the robert pickton comment that I made... nice to not feel like I'm typing into a vacuum, and to hear from Vancouver editors...--fennel

No that's not it at all, actually fennel. My friend who told me about this is an Orthodox Jew, she has no interest in Christianity. She says that in Jewish historical texts, there is a list of notable Jews going back thousands of years. It lists honourable and notorious people. The most notorious is Jesus, and he is so despicable that he is never named. He's just called 'he who must not be named'.--Anchoress 09:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! I hadn't heard that before... It is also true that Christianity often attributes Judaic perspectives about God to Jesus... I've heard the term "Adonai" and other Jewish religious terminology used by Evangelical Christians in reference to Jesus, usually in songs in church... as well as the commonly heard Evangelical Christian teaching that the Jewish Messiah was in fact Jesus... I grew up in that context. It is also Judaic tradition that the name of God must not be spoken out loud, as described on the wikipedia page titled Yahweh that I referenced above. So there's a Jewish reason for Jesus to be referred to as "He Who Must Not Be Named", and a different Evangelical Christian reason for same. Complicated!--fennel

Well we're all learning like sons of guns. I was already very familiar with the prescription in Judaism against saying G-d's name, but (despite knowing a lot of ECs as well) I have never heard of a prescription against using His name in Christianity.--Anchoress 06:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're too kind.

I didn't write my userpage in order to please others, but since I apparently have, I'm glad. Thanks for the compliment.  :) -Kasreyn 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Inclusionist userbox

{{User incl}} —Nightstallion (?) 11:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.--Anchoress 11:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote

This is a reply to your question for your article. I apologize that I am unable to assist you, I deal primarily in corporate and copyright law. I tried looking around a bit throguh NY laws and found this:

  A  person  is  guilty  of  incest when he or she marries or engages in
 sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual  conduct  with  a
 person  whom  he  or  she  knows  to  be  related  to him or her, either
 legitimately or out of wedlock, as an ancestor, descendant,  brother  or
 sister  of  either  the  whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or
 niece.
   Incest is a class E felony.

Which may be of use and seems to be in line with the other quote. I recommend you look around and don't post something untill you can credit to a reliable source. Once again, I apologize that I am unable to be of greater assistance. --Arthus 00:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou

Please, please, please don't encourage him (which is all that taunting him will do). I was thisclose to reverting your comment as trolling, but while I think it's borderline, I'm not sure that it's quite enough to justify my interfering with another user's comment on another user's talk page.

I know that he's irritating, and I know that it's tempting to lay into him, but a) it's not nice and b) it'll just make him more determined to try to screw things up however he can manage to do so, wasting everyone else's time in the process. Every frustration that he encounters just makes him more determined that he's right and everyone else on Misplaced Pages is wrong, and that he should do something about it. I'm not saying don't comment on his page at all if you really have something to say, but try to keep it calm and civil.

Thanks.

Hbackman 06:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think my message lacked calmness or civility, and I definitely think you did the right thing not 'reverting...as trolling', because I think that would have been incorrect and over-zealous. --Anchoress 06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As another third party—yeah, it really did look like you were snapping your fingers under Lou's nose. Don't kick him while he's down. If he's going to self-destruct on the wiki, allow him to do it without assistance. I'll be the first in line to block him if he steps over the line of his paroles, but I won't tolerate gratuitious incivility and taunting directed at him because he's vulnerable. Please don't do it again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinion noted. FWIW I don't think I was being incivil, much less 'gratuitously incivil' (whatever that means), but I'll take the suggestions anyway. I just think it's great that he's spreading the word (literally) about cocksucking. I mean, especially since IMO no self-respecting 14 year old (even a gay one) would be caught dead reading a scholarly article on homosexuality, I think it's a real public service that Lou is making the word cocksucker available to so many more people through his repeated comments on the article in different locations on WP. But I certainly will take the suggestions of the posters here and lay off. :-)--Anchoress 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for no reversion

I hadn't checked my talkpage for a few days and missed your Robert Falcon Scott request, so thanks for dealing with it for me. --Xyrael 08:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No probs, thanks for the note.--Anchoress 10:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Weird creature

I saw this in a townhouse park in Richmond, just behind the strip mall at #2 and Blundell. I may take a walk this weekend with a camera to see if I can get a photo...it really was pretty bizarre looking. --Kickstart70-T-C 04:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh, that's so strange. I'd love to see a pic.--Anchoress 05:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Third-wave feminism

While it does need expansion, it doesn't need it so badly that it warrants the article being defaced for the indefinite future. Moreover, tagging it isn't likely to be very helpful, because it's unlikely to attract the sort of help this article is going to need to improve (essentially, someone with a PhD or above in gender studies). Rebecca 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I disagree with your wording (defacement) and your reasoning, but as I said on the talk page of the article I won't get into a fight about it. I do think, however, that your attitude constitutes a dis-service to WP editors (assuming that the tag will attract more disruptive editors than helpful ones), and to visitors wanting to be informed about the topic as per WP's stated purpose for being.--Anchoress 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts marked as minor

If you're reverting vandalism, it's perfectly all right to mark a revert as minor; this is why admins' rollbacks are automatically marked as minor. If you're reverting a very minor edit, then it's good courtesy not to mark your revert as minor, but it's not that big a deal (though this latter part is just my opinion). All reverts regarding disputed content (e.g. not formatting/spelling/vandalism/etc.) should never be marked minor. HTH, Johnleemk | Talk 05:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of what I thought; thank you very much for the info.--Anchoress 06:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ann Furedi and BPAS merge

Hi: you removed the merge tag from the Ann Furedi side. I'm sorry if I've used the wrong template for the tag, but I don't think it's such a good idea to just remove the tag, since then people reading that article won't know the merge is being proposed and therefore won't be able to contribute their views. If there's a better tag to use (I've seen the one I placed used on both sides of a merger), could you put it up? Or at least explain your actions on the talk page so people will know what's going on with the Merge talk? Thanks in advance.--Anchoress 09:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I fear you have misunderstood my action. Both articles were tagged with the {{mergefrom}} template, thus implying that each article would be merged into the other, which is not an applicable option (incidentally if the {{merge}} template had been used instead there would not have been this problem). I therefore checked the discussions and it seemed that they implied that the intended option was that the article for Ann Furedi, which is quite short, should be merged into that for BPAS which is rather longer. Maybe if you read this it will explain the situation better than I can. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think I misunderstood your action; I didn't ascribe any ill-intent to it, I inferred from your edit summary that you thought - since the merge was proposed *from* Ann to BPAS - the merge template on Ann was wrong. I believe I said in my original post to you that I assumed I'd just put up the wrong template and I'm sorry for that, but I just thought it was inappropriate to leave the article with *no* merge template. That opinion stands, without prejudice.--Anchoress 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for putting up the new template. I'm assuming it was you?--Anchoress 10:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there was never actually any time when there was no template once you had added one: check the article history. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)