User:Adam Carr/Talk Archive8
British and Dutch Royal Families
Adam, Elizabeth is distantly related to the Dutch royal family, as both are descended from George II. This would appear to be the nearest relationship between the two. john 15:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
1888 German Map of Athens
The German Map of Athens shows how Athens was laid out in 1888, in the Ottoman times, before the large city growth happened. That's the way it is relevant. In addition, it is a PD image from Meyers Konversationslexikon, a German encyclopedia.
Besides, does it matter THAT much that the image is from a German encyclopedia? Besides, the German maps are in the history sections of many worldwide cities. WhisperToMe 05:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh, so it is. Even so, you should have moved it upwards into another section, not actually removed it.
"You need to realise, darling, that you are not the world's greatest expert on every subject under the sun. I realise this is difficult to grasp at 15 or whatever you are, but it is a fact nevertheless."
Believe me, there are things I am not as well versed at, but I have decided to tell you a few things you should remember.
- Don't bother trying to personally attack anyone. This is Wikipedia policy.
- Removing is only done if it actually warrants removing. You should have moved it upwards in this instance.
- Just because it is in bad English doesn't necessairly mean that it should be removed (Yes, this doesn't apply to this case, but still)
WhisperToMe 22:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to bother, but a recent conflict between me and 172 has spawned two RfC pages (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172) and may now be headed for arbitration. I know you've had experiences with 172 similar to mine, and more voices providing the context for my actions would be helpful. You may not agree with my actions, but if you could comment on your own experiences and/or validate my own characterization it could help considerably. VV 23:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Australia First Party
You don't "know" me, but I thought of you when I saw the page below, and I wonder if you'll have a look. The page is for the Australia First Party, and the article strikes me as quite POV in favour of the party. Lines such as "Unfortunately a hostile media soon attacked Australia First. Individuals were misled and disunion was sown against the change towards a larger, professional movement. Nevertheless AFP was initiated as a new movement in national politics. The appearance of ?Pauline Hanson?s One Nation? (ON) in early 1997 had great potential for massive change in national politics" give me pause. Please have a look if you have the time. Thanks. Moncrief 08:11, May 23, 2004 (UTC).
Friedrich Ebert might need a look at. PMA 10:58, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
For a laugh, you might want to read Talk:Holocaust. As we say in Yiddish, Gevalt! Danny 11:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
I have stayed clear of the Holocaust page until now because it is bound to promote yet another massive fight from all sides. That said, some of IZAK's additions (and his comments on the Talk) were just so flippantly ignorant. I agree with some but not all of your comments, but, like so many other topics, i think it may be a lost cause to find a compromise on it. Danny 23:43, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
You wrote: Danny, I hadn't carefully read this article previously. In general the article is poorly written and contains a number of sloppy formulations and errors of fact. The Poles or the Slavs in general were not, as a people, "targetted for extermination" in an imediate sense, although no doubt Hitler expected that they would eventually disappear from New Order Europe. [Not exactly true. There was a change in Hitler's attitudes toward the Poles once he got bogged down in the Soviet Union, but there was certainly an attempt to eradicate the intelligentsia, etc., especially in the early days of teh war. In fact, the statement is debatable.] Nor do I think it is true that Soviet POWs were "shipped to extermination camps" because they were Slavs - they were shipped to POW camps where most of them died, but that is not the same thing. [Until 1942, more Soviet prisoners than Jews had died. They were, in many cases, gassed, although again, it depends on the exact period.]
More importantly, the opening section is in my view fundamentally wrong in several respects. It is wrong in principle to use the term Holocaust to apply to all the people killed by the Nazis. [I agree with that, but you will have a fight here. BTW, holocaust was used in the American press in the early '40s to refer to other populations. See Peter Novick on that one.] This term was coined in regard to the attempted genocide of the Jews and should be reserved for that purpose. [See above.] It is also wrong to equate the mass murder of the Jews with the persecution of (for example) communists and gay men. [What about Gypsies? (though I do get very upset when JW's compare their suffering--actually, I really hate the idea of comparative suffering.]] The statement (for example) that they "all perished alongside one another in the camps" is false - the extermination camps were for Jews only [Again, Gypsies, and some testimony of Poles and POWs, but essentially correct.]. The Nazis did not systematically exterminate other categories of people (except the Gypsies): they sent them to concentration camps where most of them died, but that is not as a matter of principle the same thing. [That was exactly my argument with IZAK.]
Just some comments. Again, I think we can find a compromise area here (if it was the two of us). Danny 00:12, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
It was easier to answer on my page. Most of the differences are really just matters of wording. Danny 01:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it is deference, so much as an attempt to understand what happened. I believe that anti-Semitism was the predominant motif of Nazi ideology and underscored all of their racial philosophy. I am, however, wary of comparative suffering--We suffered more, etc., which I do here regularly. I would be hesitant to write it myself--I teach the subject and deal with some of the top scholars in the field on a daily basis--but I do get into real nitty gritty (you would have enjoyed our discussion today of whether calling Grynszpan an act of resistance is condoning terrorism). I would be eager to see what you do with it. Over the next few days, I will try to put some ideas togetehr myself. Danny 01:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
By the way, one text I would suggest is Yehudah Bauer's Rethinking the Holocaust (the latest edition). His piece on the Holocaust and other genocides, his distinction between genocide and Holocaust, are inspired. It si especially interesting in reference to the Poles, which he defines (in keeping with Lemkin and the United Nations) as genocide but not Holocaust. Danny 01:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
As for Grysnzpan, part of the problem I encounter in teaching the Holocaust is that, from a Jewish perspective, it is filled with dilemmas. I agree with you that Grynszpan, if he acted out of political motives, did what he did to protest Nazi policies or struggle against them. However, there were the implications of what he did too--Kristallnacht. Would that have happened without that impetus? Probably, but who can tell? Similarly, Rumkovsky (Lodz Ghetto) who I am researching now: inspired? a failure? I use the term "choiceless choices" a lot, because any response could have had positive or negative effects, and generally they had both, in different circumstances. That is why I am hesitant to call Grynszpan a heroic figure, just as I will not villify him. I can only report on what he did, and try to understand the motives. Danny 02:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Adam. Err ... you just said it yourself - only 20% of Australians qualify for the tax cuts. 80% of Australians get nothing. The so-called "biggest-spending budget in Australia's history" and 8 out of 10 Australians don't get any benefit from the tax cuts. (As an aside, I was astonished by it - it seemed like a sucicidal decision to me. If you wanted to do that, why on earth do it just before an election?)
Now let's consider the phrase "average weekly earnings". The distribution of income in any Western society is heavily skewed - always has been, probably always will be. The very first thing you learn in an introductory statistics class is measures of central tendency (averages), and one of the most fundamental rules of that is that you must choose an appropriate measure for the type of distribution you are dealing with. You use the mean for normal distributions, you do not use the mean for skewed distributions: you use the median. Average income in Australia, in other words, is nothing like $52,000. Any first year stats student who wrote "average income in Australia is $52,000" would fail the course.
Most Australians (8 out of 10) would be absolutely delighted to earn $52,000.
Cheers Tannin 02:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
If you saw the same "blob", then you didn't RELOAD. Try going to Athens, go to the old version, and reload. The pic is different. - If you still don't see it, clear your cache and then view the page.
See: Image:Athens_Landsat.jpg.
When someone says "new pic uploaded, to see it, go to the page and reload.
Also, see Talk:Athens
WhisperToMe 04:13, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Adam, It was a pleasing coincidence to find that you published in March 2002 an article http://www.adam-carr.net/bnews/2002/bnm3.txt questioning the size of Sydney's Mardi Gras parade. You see, I wrote a piece on it on November 15, 2002 http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/ed4.html, but had never read your piece before today. In fact, I had been talking about it for some years before I committed it to paper so I it's clear to me we had separate generation of the notion. For years I've been asking "Am I the only one to see this fallacy?" ... the fact that we both wrote it years after the parade began, in the same year, is also striking.
Your theory and mine are almost identical, with yours being the more precise and better argued. Great minds? Pip Wilson, Coffs Harbour pipwilson[at]acay.com.au
Hi Adam. I've come here hoping your considerable talents extend to nineteenth century Italy. Francesco Crispi was very near the top of the "most wanted articles" list, so I decided to have a bash at it, but quickly realized that I was out of my depth. I've tried to hack the 1911 EB article around a bit, but it is clear that that article is hopelessly inappropriate for our project a mere 93 years later. If you are interested in making an input, I would be extremely grateful. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Adam,
I will add some bios on Russian Marshalls. It will not be perfect stuff but still better than nothing. I plan on doing Koniev, Rokossovsky, Malinovsky, Tolbukhin and Yermenko to begin with.
I suggest you become a registered User and stop making anonymous edits before you embark on writing articles. Adam 14:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I believe Xenophon Zolotas is still alive. All the sources I can find mark him as still being alive, at least as of March 10, 2004. Sarge Baldy 22:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Adam,
I noticed you reverted my edit on John Gorton. Sorry if you don't like Categories because you think they look ugly. This is a known bug (see m:MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports#Categories list and right-aligned images at the top. Do you think we should remove the categories until this bug is fixed?
Edward 13:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
hi Adam,
A chinese guy here. sorry to bother you. I am translating gay-related topics into chinese, but i got a problem. you might kind enough to help me out after I had failed to get the answer by myself. Can you tell me the meaning of Questioning in LGBTQQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning). i found this work in the item of "LGBT" in wikipedia. thanks a lot.
vegie 20:16, 31 May 2004
I'm not sure what the problem is? (re: your reverts to my Paul Keating and Bob Hawke edits). The concept of categories, (In which case are you going to revert every category added?) The wrong categories (in which case why not change them instead of delete)? The huge amount of white space (which I'm not sure about, as the articles look fine for me - both IE and Firefox) --Chuq 00:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Update: this is a monobook skin problem, not a category problem Chuq 04:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- First "problem" - well, thats what categories are. There is an article about every single other category topic, the eventual aim being that the categories will be a way to auto-create/auto-populate these "list" articles (or the "list" segments of other articles). Second "problem", thanks for letting me in on the secret, now that I know there is a workaround, I have corrected the pages reverted before. --Chuq 06:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi Adam, I definetely appreciate the photos of Atatürk's statues as well as Greece and others. You do an awesome job here at Wikipedia. ato 02:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suggest:
- You learn to be a tad more diplomatic when insulting others.
I have been trying so hard to stay away from all the Jewish stuff. It just upsets me and I dont want to get into edit wars over it. Danny 03:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think it could use a separate article on the transformation of Judaism brought about by the end of Temple ritual (the rise of the synagogue, the decline of a hereditary priesthood, Yohannan Ben Zakkai, the rise of messianism, etc.). While it is part of Judaism, I wonder whether it is too important a topic to be included in a basic survey of Judaism. Danny 03:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Adam, if you want to establish a Wikimedia chapter in Australia, you might want to see this page: Meta:Starting_up_a_local_Wikimedia_chapter - Although Sydney is recommended as the "base" of the chapter, the Melbourne area should suffice. WhisperToMe 06:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Given that the article refers to her most often as "Shand Kydd," Frances Shand Kydd is most definitely where it belongs. -- Emsworth 13:10, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
If calling Members of the House of Representatives MHRs upsets you so much, why don't you just create the alternatively named category yourself? Why delete and not create? I probably wouldn't have cared if you had replaced with an equivalent meaning, but just deleting and having a whinge isn't going to further Wikipedia in any way.
Put your money where you mouth is and create (and populate) the Australian MPs category. If you don't want to do it yourself, I'll just revert back to my version. Chuq 07:56, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This should interest you: [[1]] -- Viajero 11:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- yup Danny 12:48, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nice work on Frances Shand Kydd! I was hoping someone would improve on my very rough layout someday Zerbey 02:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hello sir, this map that you uploaded has been listed as a copyright problem, can you further elaborate where you got it? Id love to use if for some of my edits. I also wonder if you have a higher resolution version, since the detail on the map is slightly hard to read.
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.redoubt.jpg){kind=link}
--GeneralPatton 21:45, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi Adam. Before I get into the mother of all edit wars, could you please take a look at the new intro to Adolf Hitler. Danny 14:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well: before I go to sleep, you should know that Sam Spade inserted the following text as an introduction as an attempt to make it more "NPOV":
- Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 - April 30, 1945) was the dictator of Nazi Germany and leader of the Nazi Party. From 1933 to 1945 he was also Chancellor of Germany, head of government, and state. A gifted orator with a profound personal presence, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders of world history. The military-industrial complex he helped create pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe. The brutal embrace of total war by all sides in World War II resulted in a savage destruction of Europe and the deaths of an estimated 50 million people. The Racial policy of Nazi Germany (which included what is now called the Holocaust) resulted in the deaths of millions and the displacement of millions more. In the end he was said to have died by his own hand in A Berlin Führerbunker with Germany in ruins around him and his enemies closing in, the Red Army only a few blocks away.
That was unacceptable to me. Danny 04:12, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Adam Carr and the neutral point of view
If you want to argue for the zionism cause, it's fine. But you cannot remove references to other important views on zionism. You do not own the article, and we are not in Soviet now. Neither is this site the us-israel.org. You have to understand that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, which means not taking side. The article on zionism shall not be a defence for it, but in a neutral way present the views of those supporting and of those opposing it. Your attide are very disrespectful to the community and to those who do not share your rather extremist political beliefs. Zw
Spare me your dishonest and hypocritical lectures Adam 06:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So will I. As for atrocities, look at the Holocaust article - du you think it is POV? Anyway, I'd be willing to accept "the much criticized Israeli policies in regard to the Palestinian people" instead of "atrocities", if that would make you change your mind. Zw (cross-posted)
WikiProject Melbourne
Hi, Adam. Seeing as you've done so much work on Melbourne, maybe you'ld want to take a look at the WikiProject Melbourne.
TPK 08:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Disambiguating
Indeed, if you had waited more than twenty seconds after I clicked save, you would have seen those links disambiguated. Ambivalenthysteria 04:27, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Anti-Zionism
Adam, please stop removing my text. I've taken a lot of time to make it clear, factual, and it removes the POV. Obviously you are too in the mode to revert people to even care to read what they are saying first. You have also failed to supply reasons for your edits beyond unhelpful slogans. Perhaps if you could be more open about what you specifically reject? Or perhaps you are confusing me for Zw? MShonle 04:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Here's my response: "But the opening should give an introduction to the overall article, particularly a long section. You've just proved my point." Basically, Palestine is so key, and is the contensious issue, that it's inconcievable to imagine it not being mentioned early.
I object to removing those sentences because the definition in the second paragraph seems too "cooked" (i.e. POV) and makes it a strawman argument. One would be lead to believe an anti-zionist was unreasonable. In my version, I supply two good reasons for it, plus the bad reason (anti-semitism). This is an incredibley complex issue, and removing high-level, neutral explainations will not help the readers get a clear picture. It may all seem clear to you, because you are an expert in history, but for those unaware high-level overviews, though you find them redundant, can be essential. MShonle 05:02, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering if you'd like to comment on the gay bathhouse page. There's a raging debate going on over there. Exploding Boy 15:12, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Adam. Personally, I agree with a lot of what Petrie says. I am concerned about the mystification of the term "holocaust" and by association,the event itself, transforming it into a meta-historical incident that transcends human understand. I prefer Arendt's approach, on the banality of evil, which seems to be echoed in Hilberg and Browning. On the other hand, that is only my POV, and not one to win me many supporters among certain people here. He does make a good case though ... Danny 02:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Elizabeth II
Dr Carr,
I don't entirely agree with the statement, "When the Queen dies, her heir under British law will probably be accepted as head of state in the Commonwealth Realms, but if so it will be by virtue of the constitutional law of each of them, rather than by hereditary right." The Queen's heir will be the head of state in the Commonwealth Realms. Consider New Zealand's Constitution Act 1986. It provides, "The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring all the powers, authorities, rights, privileges, and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as determined in accordance with the Act of Settlement..." I think that the "will probably be accepted" part is misleading, as it implies that these nations do not currently provide for succession to the Throne, and will instead make a law determining the issue upon Elizabeth II's death . (See [3])
Secondly, it is in my opninion inaccurate to claim that The Queen rules by hereditary right in the UK but by law in the other nations, as is done by the statement, "In these countries [i.e. nations other than the UK], therefore, the Queen is not strictly speaking a hereditary monarch, despite the preservation of the outward forms of hereditary monarchy." In the UK, she is a monarch by virtue of the Act of Settlement, taking into consideration Edward VIII's Abdication Act. Thus, she is monarch under law— notby hereditary right alone—in all of her Realms.
I think your notes on The Queen's position in courts are appropriate, as they indicate the existing lack of clarity on the issue.
-- Emsworth 13:47, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
Herschelkrustofsky (the user, not Krusty the Clown) has requested mediation between himself and you and John Kenney regarding the article Lyndon LaRouche. Could you please respond, either on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or on my talk page, to say whether you are prepared to accept mediation. If you accept, could you please say whether you have any preference over who the mediator is. There is a list at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, although you may choose someone not on the official committee if you prefer.
Thanks, Bcorr, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 00:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
NCLC
I've attempted to remove some of the propaganda from National Caucus of Labor Committees and add some more critical info. Please see if you have anything to contribute. AndyL 00:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Adam, while I agree with you, I am not convinced that constantly reverting it back and forth will resolve the problem. I hope you have seen my suggestion for validation on meta. Please look over that and comment, particularly since you have been nominated to chair the Validation committee (Committees on meta) . Danny 12:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
---
Adam, you wrote:
- Dear Danny and RK - I am sick of trying to defend Zionism and Anti-Zionism against the fedayeen without any help from people (like you two) who ought to have an interest in defending these articles. So I am taking them off my watchlist and they can sink into the swamp.
I have been away from Wikipedia for a couple of months, and only recently returned to "active duty" a week ago. I did not mean to give you the impression that you should be left to protect this article alone. I am again watching these articles, and recently have made a few edits. Please put this article again on your Watch list. I really appreciate all the hard work you have done! RK 13:45, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Adam, I just saw your note at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive2, a couple of days after you wrote it. For some reason I thought you were conversant with computer geek-speak. At the time, "codeword" was misspelled as "codeward"; it was fixed before the page was protected. -- llywrch 02:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
carytid photo
[edit]Hi Adam Carr,
is the carytid photo here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.caryatids.jpg by you? and if so, may i have permission to use it on my own site? I will add credit if you wish. Thanks. Xah P0lyglut 23:20, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
i've used on my site. See http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/20031016_caryatids.html Thanks. Xah P0lyglut 23:44, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
I mentioned it earlier but Friedrich Ebert has been filled with leftist apologia by someone and you're one of the few i know here who is able to fix such articles well. Please take a look at it when you have the time. PMA 23:09, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why've you reverted most of my edits to this article? I hyperlinked terms that might not be immediately clear to some readers (including things like km² and currencies, which are hyperlinked elsewhere); you removed some of the tweaks I made to make the table line up right; you unitalicised foreign terms, which the Style Guide says should be italicised (and make the article easier to read when they are) and you reverted pointless things like changing te numeric entity to the named entity for an em-bar (easier to read, suggested by the style guide). What gives? I'm not gonna rv your reversion quite yet, cos that'd be all Edit War, which would be bad, but some explanation other than a very brief tagline that seems to be an opinion, not a policy, would've been nice. Fancy expanding upon your rationale a little, if only so that I don't make changes that are gonna offend you again in the future? — OwenBlacker 16:55, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, now you've reverted some similar edits to another article I've worked on (though I'm sure my work is just a coincidence and that you do it across the board, for consistency). You've inserted spaces after headings, which I know is contrary to policy and you've unhyperlinked terms that readers may not find all that familiar. Surely one of the points of Wikipedia is that hyperlinking is really simple and a useful means of accessing further information? Could you direct me, please, to the appropriate policy, so that I can work within it, rather than have the two of us frustrating each other by working in a diametrically opposing manner? At the moment, it just seems like we're on opposing sides of the Build the web debate — I really don't think I'm being excessive in my use of links. Anyways, if you could reply to these two, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. — OwenBlacker 19:59, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
Adminship
[edit]Hi Adam! I've nominated you for Adminship of the English Wikipedia. To accept the nomination, please click here. Have a great day! David Cannon 20:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I declined the nomination and am not an Administrator. Adam 05:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Re: Greek Art
[edit]I deleted the page to remove a copyvio from the history. -- Jim Regan 04:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Re:Different categories for Concentration and Extermination camps
[edit]Hi Adam, see my response at User talk:IZAK. All the best. IZAK 09:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cleaning up my messy english!
[edit]Thanx a lot :-) Im rephrasing "the greek constitution..." to quote the exact text of the Constitution + relinking to Syntagma, will work on it soon. Im also deleting "Turkish-speaking" because the muslim minority consits of turkish-,roma- and pomak- speaking populations. Can u also tell me how i can sign my messages? Ive been looking for long to no avail. Also "but this category is not recognised by the Greek government" what do you mean by recognized? Thanx -ZeroFuzion
- You are right about the Syntagma. Ive corrected it; had the German Grundgesetz in mind.
- More than half of the Thracian Muslims speak (or at least understand) Turkish, but the minority remains mixed, and can only be called Muslim. This is not a detailed Demographics article; you can add this info in Demographics_of_Greece and/or make an article about the muslims of greece.
- About the slavs and the slavophones you are wrong. You can do a little bit more reasearch, I can assist you if you want. :)
ZeroFuzion 05:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
my...
[edit]' a malicious vandal and a lying slanderous piece of filth with whom civilised discourse is not possible. Such people must be fought and defeated. '
- and to think I was so recently scolding you for so much less :). I understand you feel you are righteously defending your employer, and I read what krusty said, but I must say your comments above (and to a lesser extent previously) are a bit "over the top". I've read thru both, and your version of the article is generally better written, with the exceptions of a couple POV sentances, and the leaving out of all of his "celebrety moments". I don't think an escalation w krusty on the talk page is the answer tho, and I would respectfully ask you to be the bigger virtual man and strive to avoid personal attacks. Sam [Spade] 06:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Reverting "Monument to the Royal Stuarts"
[edit]You reverted my edit to "Monument to the Royal Stuarts", my edit being twofold. First, I expanded the part on the title King of France being used by James II and other British monarchs. While I agree it was a bit impudent to call this a "clarification" (as if the previous version was unclear to begin with), I still maintain that what brought forth the change, namely the Treaty of Amiens, was in 1802, and not - as the article now claims - in 1801. My formulation was perhaps too expansive, but the year should be altered nevertheless.
Secondly, I mentioned the tomb (and monument) of Christina of Sweden. You mentioned that "this is not a catalogue of everything else in St Peter's (which would be a very long list)". Indeed, it would be a very long list to try and mention the Stuart Monument's relative location to that of every other pope, saint, angel, cardinal and whatnot buried, entombed or honored somehow in St Peter's. But the list of 17th century monarchs with memorials in the church is very short. In fact, in includes only the Stuarts and Christina. In fact, they are the only secular heads of state (and would-be heads of state) with memorials in St Peter's. The fact that they all lost their thrones [ousting and abdication, respectively] due to their choice of religion, and also happen to lie (practically) next to each other I find interesting, and worthy of mentioning in the last paragraph of the article. If what I wrote was too much, how about rephrasing it to something along the lines of:
- Christina of Sweden, the only other monarch with a memorial in the church, lies entombed in the opposite pillar, across the nave.
Or something. What do you think? Too bloated? —Gabbe 14:54, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
I copied a comment you made on my talk page to Talk:President_of_the_United_States#Presidential photos. --Jiang 19:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
WHEELER complaint
[edit]Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER I need one (or two?) people to certify the complaint. If you can attempt to resolve the dispute or intervene on Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft and then document that would be helpfulAndyL 03:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
nutters
[edit]I've been on the wiki (and been IRL) long enough to know about the potential troubles of associating myself w nutters. IRL I am pretty careful, I admit. But when it comes to the net I try VERY hard to give the crackpots and wingnuts a fair hearing. My thought is "how can they learn if we simply drive them out"? Nutters need a public airing, and a support network. Being a psyche major (such as I am ;) I feel inclined to provide them w a support network. That doesn't mean I agree w their POV's, but it does mean I agree w their cause: Nutters yapping everlasting, w clickable links for all. Isn't that what the wiki is, all boiled down? Sam [Spade] 08:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Nope, I don't agree, but I do think your general idea is sound, of there needing to be a quality standard. My thought is a hierarchy of quality, from the lowest (new articles recently created by anonymous users) to the highest (brilliant prose roundly praised and peer reviewed, where edits are only made after discussion in talk. this has some ideas which are prob. in the right direction (if not precisely perfect). IMO however there must be room for crappy articles and crazed idiots hacking away at them as well. A million monkeys and a million years... imagine what they can accomplish! ;) Sam [Spade] 20:00, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Lyndon LaRouche
[edit]It was very interesting to read your rewrite of Lyndon LaRouche. I had seen the original article, but couldn't verify it because there were nothing but propaganda to be found on the net. Hopefully this new article will get a high google rating and thereby fill that hole. Thue | talk 11:40, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
VfD discussion
[edit]Hi, I would appreciate it if you could lend a hand in explaining to certain people here that a collection of quotes does not make an encyclopedia article, and that the solution to dealing with a tendentious collection of quotes is not to simply add more quotes. Please see: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/PLO_and_Hamas Thanks in advance. -- Viajero 13:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)