How is it that... |
Hagiographer (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
Thank you :) |
Thank you :) |
||
[[User:Blowski|Blowski]] 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
[[User:Blowski|Blowski]] 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
== I believe you should learn to use your privileges in a positive way == |
|||
Edits like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASqueakBox&diff=71242385&oldid=71181172], protecting user pages full of insults don't transmit anything positive about you. Some of those insults have been posted by you, like "[...] is awarded for going beyond the call of duty to protect the article "Javier Solana" from attack by rather 'strange' people". "Strange" isn't a word to use in reference to any person and far less in the Wikipedia. Ah, and be more clever. SqueakBox is accessing the Wikipedia from an IP, it's been proved, and you and nobody has blocked him. Your bias against me is evident. So, if you repeat your attacks against me I will start the process to have you desysoped. |
|||
Remove SqueakBox's insults from the user page you've protected. [[User:Hagiographer|Hagiographer]] 06:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:26, 31 August 2006
Archiving Talk Pages
Please note that archiving talk page discussions, while they are in progress, could be taken as misleading and/or hostile and at the very least violates WP:ARCHIVE which states you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page. Please allow the discussion to finish before archiving it. Paul Cyr 23:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have no ongoing conversation with you. Someone who engages in personal attacks while lecturing others about personal attacks is just trolling. We have no ongoing conversation. Please lay off the harrassment. I'm trying to take a break. I don't have the patience for the regular crap - I certainly have no patience with your harrassment. Guettarda 01:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to end the discussion that's fine. However getting the last word in then quickly archiving the page is what the my could be taken as misleading comment appies to. Compounded by the fact that when you restored the archive to your liking, you also deleted my reply to one of your comments. Paul Cyr 02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Article? Think you're a bit confused. Deleted your comment? It's still in the page history - don't get so attached to your own verbiage. Guettarda 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Calling me a liar[1] is a clear personal attack. While your initial personal attack may have been unintentional, your refusal to address my concerns suggests that it was intentional. Your next personal attack seems intentional, since you made the same sort of statements which, when made by me, you called a personal attack. I wouldn't have considered it a personal attack, but based on your logic I assume you meant it as one. However, your latest accusation was an unequivocal violation of out policy on personal attacks. You have now violated two separate policies in the course of your attacks on me. In addition, by simply deleting the comments (which detailed your policy violation) you have done what you scolded me for doing. Stop your nonsense. As I said before, try editing articles instead of going on policy-violation sprees. Guettarda 23:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought you said you have no ongoing conversation with me and told me to stop replying (or harrassing as you said)? Yet here you are days later bringing the issue up again - seems like your accusation of harrasment is quickly turning around towards you. And if you read WP:NPA you would have seen that saying someone has lied or is lying is not a personal attack. In any case, I'm off to the movies and will be posting a RfC against you when I get back so that other parties can get involved. Paul Cyr 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- You have a remarkable ability to twist the truth, don't you? Calling me a liar is a clear personal attack on your part. To begin with, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, said anything that was false, let along intentionally false. Your accusation of "lying" is both false and it makes statements about me as a person. So no, you are incorrect when you say that you have not made personal attacks.
- As to your statement "I thought you said you have no ongoing conversation with me and told me". I had no ongoing conversation, which is why I archived the page. I raised a separate issue, which was your ongoing harrassment on me, your false accusations and your ongoing personal attacks against me. So no, this is a separate issue - your harrassment, personal attacks, and ongoing false accusations against me. Which I have not archived, in case you didn't notice. "[H]ere you are days later bringing the issue up again" - you keep engaging in personal attacks and making false accusations against me. As soon as I became aware of your latest personal attacks, I replied to them. Guettarda 00:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't worth my time anymore because of a personal attack you on another user. I have removed your comments from my talk page and have no interest in discussing the matter anymore. Feel free to get the last word in and then archive this conversation. The facts are in the history; I will let others make their own conclusions from it. I am not worried about my actions. Do not comment on my talk page regarding this issue again or I will simply revert on sight. Paul Cyr 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Given your complete disregard for policy, I think you should be worried. I find it amusing that a person who cannot accumulate 350 mainspace edits in over a year and who cannot follow the rules they scold others about takes it upon himself to try to drive people who actually contribute encyclopaedic content out of the project. Guettarda 05:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep cool
Just a word of support. Don't let anyone bait you into acting in a way that doesn't well reflect your integrity. Be well and calm and confident in your contributions and you'll be just fine. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Ryan. You're awesome as always. I'm far too stressed (real life and WP), I'm trying to take a break. Hopefully I'll get a chance. Guettarda 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Violation of 3 revert rule
You have violated the 3 revert rule on the AIDS dissidents category page. Please undo your changes and see the discussion underway on the talk page, and participate if you feel you have something to add. --Wclark 05:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? What are you talking about? I have two edits to the page in 24 hours. Please stop adding nonsense to my talk page. Guettarda 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Some help needed
Hi Guettarda, long time no see. Hope all is well. I am just writing to ask for your opinion on an article I am writing. It is currently in my Sandbox. Some sections are a bit out of my area of expertise and someone with a more solid background in Caribbean biology could provide some help/expertise/enlightment. Joelito (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever you can give me is fine by me. The article still has two to three days before I move it to main space. You can give your advice after it is moved to Fauna of Puerto Rico. Joelito (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Reminder
Hi, asked a while ago if you'd read over G. Ledyard Stebbins, if you're not too busy could you take a look. Thanks. --Peta 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey!
Are you Afro-Trinidadian, Indo-Trinidadian or mixed of the 2.
Requesting your opinion
I wrote the article Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act, the first bill in history that contains an article from Wikipedia. It appeared on DYK and right away somebody "tags" it for deletion. I inviteyou to express yourself here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act. Thank you Tony the Marine 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Godless discussion
WOuld you care to comment here about your reversions? We've been discussing this material for several days, and it would be nice if you would add your input if you continue to revert our changes. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Have been talking in circles, you mean? FM and JZ have said all there is to say. You have ignored their rationale and continue to revert to a less accurate version. Are you saying that if I add "listen to JZ and FM" on the talk page you will suddenly see the light? What is the point of adding snide comments here anyway? Guettarda 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Teacher evals
I suppose my underlying concern comes from my experience with teaching evaluations. Student evaluations can influence hiring, tenure and promotion for faculty and teaching assistants. Getting good evaluations pays off, getting bad evaluations can hurt you. I believe that this is a major driver of grade inflation, which lowers the overall quality of tertiary education. There are enough forces which limit your fearlessness as an admin. While there are a few people who are too fearless, starting people off like that seems to be a good way to produce cowed admins. Guettarda 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's why at my law school, evals are collected pre-final exam, pre-grade. This is a big problem incidentally, since in the final exam is often the only piece of assessment, accounting for 90-100% percent of the grade in the vast majority of exam classes. So if a professor taught well, but designed an awful exam (say, way too easy, which is a big problem, given the mandatory curve), there is no way to reflect that in the ratings. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The solution has to be a professor eval before the exam and an exam-only eval after the exam. But they're not doing it despite suggestions... - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Paul Weyrich
You are editorializing, period. It is not permitted to attempt to get inside someone's head or say what they intended to do. I cleared up the inaccuracies that your edit restored. Considering that I know Mr. Weyrich personally, I feel I understand his views better than you do. --Pravknight 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The edit you make has inaccurate information. Stop inserting inaccurate information and people will stop reverting you. Oh, and try to keep your edit summaries accurate. Guettarda 03:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- More to the point, it's hard to figure out what you mean by editorialising. You say you speak for Weyrich, but you are altering what TheocracyWatch had to say; your assertion that Wiccans are satanists is inaccurate; and the language you are inserting is less neutral and more opinionated than what was there before. If you know Weyrich well enough to speak for him then you probably shouldn't be editing the article anyway - if you are too close to the issue to be objective then I suggest that you stay on the article's Talk page. Guettarda 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Armando/Daily Kos
I'm chipping in as a mediator. IF you agree with me working on the case, please drop a note stating so on my talk page. -- Drini 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Michael Lee-Chin Article
Hi Guettarda
As you are obviously taking in interest in the Michael Lee-Chin article, I thought I would ask for your input into a discussion myself and the other editors are having. Please see the talk page and contribute whatever you want. Thanks Blowski 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, friends, this is it...
I'll be moving to Connecticut tomorrow along with my family. I'll be leaving Wikipedia for a while until everything gets set up at our new home. It all depends on my Internet access, but I'll be seeing you in a week or two. Bye! --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Wealthy black people
As you reverted my move of Black billionaires to Wealthy black people, I expect you to at least make a comment at Talk:Black billionaires or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black billionaire (2nd nomination). --Ezeu 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have moved everything back to Black billionaires pending consensus. --Ezeu 19:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Your worthy comments
Greetings, my friend! I have appreciated and relished your thoughts and careful analyses.
- But that evolution happened (and continues to happen) is an observation.
I would agree with you. But I also think I understand why I agree with you. I agree with you because my act of what you call "observation" is inescapably shaped by the mechanics of my cognition.
Separate from my cognition, I would say, is "fact"--which the standard English dictionary defines as "Information presented as objectively real." And what is "objectively real" depends critically on the experience level of the audience. I can present something which for me and for other informed people is "objectively real"--but if my audience does not have the experience within which what I say is "objectively real" for them, then I have failed to score a "fact" with that particular audience.
And what I observe from my experience is that, yes, Stephen Jay Gould presents evolution as "fact"--that is, he presents evolution as "information that he presents as objectively real." But Stephen Jay Gould's presentation does not score as "objectively real" with the creationists because the creationists do not have the cognitive apparatus and experience within which the presentation could ever in a million years--without enormous evolutionary advancements of the creationists' cognitive apparatus--score with them as "objectively real."
From a very secular viewpoint in which there is no God, never has been a God, never will be a God, Stephen Jay Gould is in the same secular situation as the Christian missionaries when they confronted the heathen on whatever shores they fulfilled their mission. One religion presents as "fact" what the audience cannot ever accept as "fact" unless they convert and believe by faith what they cannot--with their limited experience and cognitive ability--ever see as "objective reality." --Rednblu 22:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to Or
"Or" is non-exclusive [1] Guettarda 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, "or" is exclusive in normal English language. In logic, the concept of "or" is a little bit more tricky. See here and here for more info. Do you actually have problems with my edit? --Roland Deschain 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- While or is exclusive in boolean logic, it definitely is not exclusive in English. So yes, the rationale for your edit is mistaken. Guettarda 13:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I gave you two sources to back up my view point. Please provide some sources for yours. However, if you have a problems with my edit, please take this up in Talk:Evolution.--Roland Deschain 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- While or is exclusive in boolean logic, it definitely is not exclusive in English. So yes, the rationale for your edit is mistaken. Guettarda 13:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Lesser Antilles
- Hi Guettarda, I've followed the list in Lesser Antilles. Correct if you think it is wrong. I've been doing this while cleaning up Category:Caribbean islands, you may want to check this category as well, to check for mistakes. There's something I'm not sure of: I thought the Antilles were only a part of the Caribbean islands, but it appears all of the Caribbean islands are also in the Antilles. What do you think?
- At the moment the category tree would be
- Category:Caribbean islands
- Caribbean islands not in the Antilles?
- Category:Antilles
- Category:Caribbean islands
- Maybe the Antilles category could be removed, it only has three childs at the moment. Lesser and Greater Antilles would be direct childs of Caribbean islands then. Also, maybe the Leeward Antilles could form a subcategory.
- I'm still working on it, I think most of articles in the top category will go to a subcategory (it's already down from 86 to 23). The tree is not perfect yet, but I think it was necessary to bring some order into this category. Feel free to check, correct or help out :-) Basically every island should be as low as possible into the tree. Also this tree should be for the islands, not for countries / cities / etc. Piet 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've copied this discussion to Talk:Lesser Antilles. Piet 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Weyrich/First Amendment
Please see Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Controversial_section. Sorry this has gotten lost amidst the bickering, which I'm not especially interested in. If a sentence says "Paul Weyrich is orange, and the sky is pink" I'm not going to hesitate to challenge the statement that the sky is pink even if I have no opinion on the hue of the article subject.-choster 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
How is it that...
you can explain something in a few words that the help article couldn't explain in something longer than a thesis?
Thank you :) Blowski 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe you should learn to use your privileges in a positive way
Edits like this [2], protecting user pages full of insults don't transmit anything positive about you. Some of those insults have been posted by you, like "[...] is awarded for going beyond the call of duty to protect the article "Javier Solana" from attack by rather 'strange' people". "Strange" isn't a word to use in reference to any person and far less in the Wikipedia. Ah, and be more clever. SqueakBox is accessing the Wikipedia from an IP, it's been proved, and you and nobody has blocked him. Your bias against me is evident. So, if you repeat your attacks against me I will start the process to have you desysoped.
Remove SqueakBox's insults from the user page you've protected. Hagiographer 06:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)