User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:53, 20 February 2004

Old talk moved to User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive1 Jwrosenzweig 00:01, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

Please leave notes/questions/chastisements/haiku/concerns for me here. I will usually respond on your talk page for your convenience. Thanks, and happy editing! Jwrosenzweig

It is interesting that you leave information about a "curse" when you claim to be a purveyor of facts. How can a rational individual write that a "curse" is a fact. Absolutely no facts prove there is a curse, and the only ones who believe that it exists are people who like to make excuses.

In other words, you say that saying there is no curse is an opinion. I submit that you are doing the exact same thing by saying there is a curse, that is also an opinion. There are absolutely no facts that support a curse, just coincidence. Ruth in no way, put a curse on the Red Sox. In fact he loved New England and had a home here for many years. When I go to other team's sites I see no mention of a curse or hex. There are plenty of teams with less World Series titles than the Red Sox. If you must keep "The curse of the Bambino" you should at least place that in the myth/legand column. Also in the interest of your own stated rules, any mention of the curse should be kept to the Curse of the Bambino site and be removed from the Red Sox site.

I'm sure you are sick of editing that part anyway ;).

Hey, if somebody says there's a curse (and they say it enough that it's somehow worthy of notice), we report it, even if we think it's silly. There's a lot of wacko science recorded here, and if you look at it, you'll notice we don't say "X is a wacko scientific belief". Rather, we explain what it is, and why most (if not all) knowledgable scientists disagree.

Same goes for the curse. You and I know selling Ruth didn't anger some spirit who has hexed the Red Sox. But people talk about it, so we record here the events that led people to talk about a so-called curse (selling Ruth, later unsuccess, 1986, etc.). Since we assume our readers have a medium level of intelligence, we figure we don't have to put a sentence in saying "Most scientists do not believe in curses." I hope you don't mind that. :) And I'm very sick of editing all of this, but somebody has to keep these pages from turning into rants for or against the Red Sox. I've seen both all day, and I'm tired. :) We don't get paid for this, you know. :) Thanks for leaving the note, though, and I hope we can come to an understanding. Jwrosenzweig 23:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Roof

Regarding the "Curse of the bambino" page. Why is it unreasonable in the paragraph mentioning Shaughnessy to accurately assess that he and other media members fall back on this laughable curse in lieu of any effort at journalism? You tune in ESPN to watch a Red Sox game one month into any season and can't get 2 innings into the game before someone references said curse. No one talked about this curse until Shaughnessy wrote his book, and now he makes national media appearances referencing his book and the curse. He is the proponent of this myth and has a financial incentive to do so. I understand an effort to be fair and balanced about discussing the history of this myth, but in doing so, it is only fair to mention the source of the perpetuation.

Re: your comments, yes, the curse is a laughable thing, but calling something laughable isn't a neutral point of view (NPOV is what we live by here). The idea is to present all the facts so that the reader sees "ah, this is an idea proponed by a non-Bostonian which most Bostonians feel is greatly exaggerated....probably just some media thing". If you want to haggle over how to do that, why not post your proposed addition at Talk:Curse of the Bambino? That's the best way of settling things--there experienced editors will get together and talk over how best to handle it, and ultimately we hope to reach a compromise that will satisfy you. How's that sound? Jwrosenzweig 19:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: your efforts. Assuming you agree the curse is laughable, then it doesn't make sense to require a NPOV. It seems that by definition, humor or over the top assessment would be suitable. Even so, it would seem reasonable to have some mention of his journalistic laziness (and that of his peers). Rather than edit the page and cause you have to re-edit, etc I would propose the following after the line "... focused on the so-called curse." -- "Shaughnessy and other media members frequently fall back on this 'curse' when referring to the Red Sox, often ignoring other more relevant topics which are germane to the moment." For what it is worth, what is resented by most Bostonians isn't the story of the curse (schlock is schlock after all) but the discussion of it at all times in all circumstances. And that is laziness on the part of the media -- which is perpetuated by your discussion here. Your attempt to be factual leaves the reader without the knowledge that the proponent of the myth uses every media opportunity to perpetuate it, and it has become headline material for every Red Sox event without a positive outcome. In the big picture, it isn't that big a deal, but at the same time your efforts (as a group) seem to be serious about the content, and as such, it wouldn't seem to be an accurate portrayal of the subject matter. Roof

Sbonds

Thanks for the quick reply. I didn't expect anyone to notice my user page for quite some time. I guess that "Recent Changes" page gets some traffic. ;-)

I've looked around the Wikipedia quite a bit (lots of liberal use of the Random Page link) and the content seems quite good. My biggest concern about using this for any kind of real reference is there is often no way to validate what has been said. For example, if someone told me that Jicin was a food additive, I wouldn't know the difference than if it were a city in the Czech republic. Few articles seem to link anywhere that could back up the claims in the article.

This doesn't destroy the usefulness of the Wikipedia, but it does mean that it couldn't be used as the sole reference for anything important.

Thanks for the links to the Village Pump and other newbie resources!

Sbonds 00:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate what you have done, not only on my talk, but on kenneths as well. I likewise appreciate those who are civil, and able to compromise, regardless of their POV. I do take issue with much of what tannin has done. I don't like how they (I donno their gender!) shuffled things about at Wikipedia:Conflicts between users in a way profoundly unfriendly to myself, shortly after some disagreements at Talk:atheism which was shortly after they removed Socialism and Nazism from VfD (they had also placed a rude note there, about "Right wing kooks"). So I do have real objections to what has happened. I also see your point, that making a big stink is probably not going to be good for me on this one... :( Jack 01:12, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dispute with Lizard King

Please take a look at the latest few edits of talk:yeti. Thanks - UtherSRG 15:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tahnsk! I replied on my talk page. - UtherSRG 16:10, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Metasquares's Nomination

I responded to your question on my talk page. --cprompt 20:01, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. The Lucy tuning thing seems to be settled, with a page that mollifies Lucy and isn't too bad, albeit with more material than the subject really warrents. Gene Ward Smith 23:33, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No

The reason for my name change is a I do not want to have my name associated with this place. I am about one inch from leaving permanantly. Ever since I discovered the percentage of admins whom are trolls (or grossly incompetant/biased/unreasonable/anti-intellectual) I have had serious reservations about this place. I find any mention of my name here offensive. I will be deleting your comment. Please do not continue to broadcast my name. The idea that one of my children (or grandchildren) may some day chance across my name on google or some such, and find it connected to the sort of... unexpressable... (I'd be able to articulate this better in person, after a few beers, and utilizing alot of foul language) "incivility" which I have encountered here... tha idea of that just makes me sick. Please do not refer to me by anything other than the new user name I had created. Thank you. Sam Spade 23:03, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment about m:The Wrong Version. :) Angela . 01:06, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

MMPOW

I noticed that you deleted MMPOW. Do MMOPW and MMORTS fall in the same category? - Texture 18:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Got your reply - Texture 20:24, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Homegrown images - UtherSRG 17:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copyright infringement replacements

For copyright infringement replacements, the usual practice is to write the replacement at the /temp page, then when the 7 days for objections is up, to delete the infringing page and use "move this page" to move the /temp page to the main location (and then delete the dangling redirect from the /temp page). The reason for this is to get any copyright violations out of the article history. I did this just now on Idar-Oberstein. Since the same content was at the temp page nothing should've been lost, just letting you know for future reference. --Delirium 04:38, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is a very nice solution, ye. Thanks a lot :-) fr0069

Fringe science

Excellent! That is the paragraph that I wanted to write, but couldn't. Kudos. --Dante Alighieri 06:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Medieval literature

Looking good. Bmills 11:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dick Van Dyke

Thank you for starting and writing Dick Van Dyke. A previously sad omission of a great American has now been rectified. -- Decumanus 19:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No user page

I prefer to keep my username in red type whenever I show up on Wikipedia, and that's final. Denelson83 21:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you were upset, I apologize. Denelson83 21:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Me

Thanks for the quick response. I'm not sure if you noticed on my talk page, but there was the following message: "You are now a sysop" from Bmills. If it helps any...Yours, Meelar 22:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. Meelar 22:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bmills attempted to make Meelar a sysop during the bried "interwiki bureaucrat" experiment. He accidentally forgot to type in the wiki where he wanted to make a sysop, and so he made Meelar a sysop on meta by mistake. -- Tim Starling 23:14, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sinister goings on

Someone is trying to put words in your mouth.. or rather, take words out of your mouth and replace them with others retroactively. Here, take a look at this. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, forgot to mention. TOTALLY reverted, plus I left a stern warning about this being a ONE TIME warning and immediate banning resulting from a second occurance. I also notified Dysprosia, since it was on Dysp's page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Academy Award

Thanks for the answer. Sounds like Lund was more like a "kid wrangler". RickK 03:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Christian Heritage Party of Canada

Hi JW

Oops, must have forgotten to post the page on copyvio. Thanks for spotting this. No, absolutely no objection to you putting a stub in its place. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, just an update. I was officially promoted sometime today. Thanks for all your help. Meelar 05:28, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello, I'm archiving looking at the page history. --Hemanshu 06:14, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally I think Wik needs tranquilising, and ticking off, but not banning. I allow people to wind me up, I guess I care too much. Secretlondon 22:16, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep editing away my changes to the curse of the bambino page? You imply that the book "Curse of the Bambino" is proof of the big role this "curse" plays in Boston culture. You have this wrong. Flat out wrong. There is no known use of this phrase before the book was published. Please include this information. You are perpetuating a myth, not telling the truth.

Nick Griffin

Vandal! :) - Decumanus 23:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

DNA

[Peak:] Thanks for installing the changed paragraphs. As you may have gleaned from the Talk page, my role was mainly as a mediator and proposer, which is the main reason why I did not participate in the final vote. If I had, the outcome would have been to strengthen the majority in all cases; that is, the results would have been:

1a: 6 out of 6 votes cast for this question

2b: 5 out of 6 "

3b: 5 out of 6 "

Unfortunately, 168... chose to abstain on these particular questions, but even 5 out of 7 is better than two-thirds, so I believe that, imperfect though these paragraphs may be, they should not be changed without "due process" on the Talk page. I just wish there were better Wiki-guidelines about all this! Thanks again. Peak 05:55, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course... Secretlondon 21:53, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Ransom, et al

Funny, but until about a month ago I'd never gotten into any kind of edit/revision war despite lots of editing ... then whamo, I stumbled into cosmotheism, iridology and, of all things, the Bambino! Next thing you know, there will be an Arthur Ransome edit war over Titty's real name. (Don't laugh: there's an Arthur Ransome group that has some heated debates http://the-stable.lancs.ac.uk/~esarie/tarboard/tarboard.html) Anyway, thanks for the admin nomination. It will drive user:irismeister insane. - DavidWBrooks 21:55, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna of Belize

I was still making changes. Have a look at Plants and animals of Belize and the related pages and let me know if there is anything still wrong. Dori | Talk 00:54, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia:Translation

As you see, I've listed myself. I'm currently translating an article i think is missing in the english 'pedia, and it's very tough because the original is not very good. But the project is good, i think. Inside this project, can i ask for peer review after i've done a translation and want help on english style/grammar? (on other occasions here, my style was labeled "engrish" :(( so i seem need it). Lady Tenar 22:06, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User 195..... on the loose again

Hi. Please visit the Race article and deal with 195... who has started an edit war. I see you have already been on his case. Thanks. P0M

Alan Bullock

Thanks for your comment. I think we are very thin on historian biographies at the moment. I've tried to fix up Robert Conquest and Isaac Deutscher as well. Adam 08:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are not the only person who has made this comment. It has been pointed out to me that I may be encouraging him. I understand that the will of the community seems to be that I shouldn't unblock him again. I don't like people being blocked without discussion but I will respect the view of the community. Secretlondon 19:24, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Faults

I'm not sure exactly what you were referring to when you said that you "admit all of [my] known faults," but I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for whatever messes I've caused in the past. I hope that you will change your mind about your wish for me to not continue here. Anthony DiPierro 19:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you!

James - thank you very much for the kind words on my talk page. It's one of the nicest things anyone on here has said to me -- it's always good to hear that people appreciate my work. Once again, thank you. →Raul654 23:11, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

My new barnstar

Thanks a lot for the barnstar, I really appreciate it. Never thought I'd get one of these. silsor 00:32, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Gore Page

Hello, to your request, I fixed my page and added the needed legal info. You can check it out to see if it has all the needed information. http://www.algoresupportcenter.com/goreinfo.html

User:ChrisDJackson

Recreation of 51st state

Just so you know and don't think I'm vandalizing, I have recreated 51st state as a legitimate article. I did this as per discussion on my talk page. →Raul654 21:39, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Plautus satire

Your comments are requested on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire. →Raul654 05:19, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god_poll#run-off_election/Compromise?

"Your skills both intrigue and suprise me. Do you sincerely think it is honest to use the lower case G in refering to God, when all sources of reference (with the sole exception of Encarta, a source I personally despise) do not? Why must wiki take this stand, and to what end? I find it a fearsom slap to the face for both our theistic, and our un-opinionated readers, and a complete parody of NPOV. Sam Spade 21:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC) "

I asked you this there, and was worried you missed it. I'm honestly interested in what your educated (semi?) proffessional opinion (I don't mean to be rude at all, but I don't know your line of work) about the spelling of God? Do you think the one God who is All is contained within the concept of god or gods? I have never known the words to be used that way. If I was writing a story about a specific greek or roman god, I would use the god spelling. But if I am refering to the absolute infinite, he that is, was, and ever shall be, how could he be included with the lesser concept of gods? Sam Spade 07:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry its so long? I'd sooner thank you for your thoroughness! :). You may always feel free to say as much as you like to me. If its upsetting I may take issue with that (I'm certainly not doing that here! :) or if its inordinantly long (say you write me a novel) I may take my time in reading it and formulating my response. Anyhow, I understand what you are saying, and respectfully disagree with it. My opinions on why have been covered extensively, but can easilly be summed up as my being in accordance w Dictionary.com, encyclopedia.com, the brittanica, etc.. Thanks for the polite discourse (something distressingly uncommon here), Sam Spade 20:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was in the middle of writing something, and then saw someone else had already done it. Secretlondon 21:51, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Rhyming

Thank you, all input appreciated. I certainly hadn't thought of "woe", which is a great poetical word. But, on another matter... I've been admiring your conversations with a certain mutual friend over the last two days. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard. Your responses were just, in a word, perfect. :) fabiform | talk 22:05, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LOL... I apologize for my mistake. Gender is such a strange thing online, especially when you're doing something like Wikipedia where the focus is on work, not socializing. I have no idea why I made that assumption. Anyway, good luck in your dealings with Plautus. He's getting better, but the jury is still very much out. Isomorphic 22:35, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are so bloody clever! You are tying him in knots. theresa knott 23:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

@@ Line 171: / Line 171: @@
 [[User:ChrisDJackson]]
-----
-Excuse me ? Is iridology a PaperChase item, let alone a Medical Subject Heading ? Is ''any ''  MD practicing iridology met ''anywhere '' with something else than pre-digested nonsense like the one you exhort right here ? Any suggestion will be highly appreciated. In the mean time please refrain from smear, character assasination, personal attacks and ''ad hominem '' ! In order to judge an expert, you need perhaps be an expert yourself. This is the essence of ''peer'' in the peer review. In the mean time please refrain your confessions to a more appropriate place than my talk page. And how about your own tone in an attempt to belittle or intimidate using red herrings ? Thank you very much in advance ! Why have you not addressed the insults I got on the iridology pages from the very moment I started to talk quality issues ? It would have been much more interesting if '''you''' had offered me an example here of ''a more conciliatory and open-minded tone and attitude in your interactions with others ''. And a word of excuse: since I intend to continue with my 17,000 + page edits so far, and being quite busy with it, from now on, and for you and Theresa only, I am available for discussions of medical issues, not characters. Sincerely, [[User:Irismeister|irismeister]] 01:18, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
 ----
@@ Line 194: / Line 192: @@
 Thank you, all input appreciated.  I certainly hadn't thought of "woe", which is a great poetical word.  But, on another matter... I've been admiring your conversations with a certain [[user:Irismeister|mutual friend]] over the last two days.  I don't think I've ever laughed so hard.  Your responses were just, in a word, perfect.  :)  [[User:Fabiform|fabiform]] | [[User talk:Fabiform|talk]] 22:05, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-----
-Ain't seen nothin' yet :-)  Interested in follow-ups ? If you still think laughing is good for health, please contemplate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irismeister#Allegations_not_documented the sequel here] Sincerely, [[User:Irismeister|irismeister]] 22:31, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
 ----
 LOL... I apologize for my mistake.  Gender is such a strange thing online, especially when you're doing something like Wikipedia where the focus is on work, not socializing.  I have no idea why I made that assumption.  Anyway, good luck in your dealings with Plautus.  He's getting better, but the jury is still very much out.  [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 22:35, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
@@ Line 202: / Line 198: @@
 You are so bloody clever! You are tying him in knots. [[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 23:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 ----
-== Oups, Rosie, three '''fundamental''' inconsistencies today only : )==
-My friend jwr,
-*you just stated above [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Plautus_satire precisely here] that '''quote-I don't believe Raul has ever protected a page for me before, nor I him-unquote'''. Now please be so kind to higlight for my reading pleasure and apparently for ever increasing depth in understanding of human mysteries (not character :-) how's that with what you did in Raul's page ?
-*you say there was an edit war in the iridology page as grounds for your request of page protection somewhere between Raul's broad shoulder and the poor compressed tomcat-in-the-glass. Clearly, it wasn't AFAIAC, there will never be or perhaps I am just - as you didn't care to dismiss - only a color-blind ''quack'':-)
-*you said you did read policies and Netiquette and now ''will check back to see''. If you really do that, then please understand I can also read English :-) While ''editors admit when they concede a point, so that it is easier for us to discuss issues'' WHAT on EARTH and under Horatio's skies are you talking about when you smear me, call me a lier, and feed me so many personal questions that you don't let me talk issues let alone explain issues to you ?
-You may also count to three as it pleases your personality, the quack is back :-) And having been trained into your tactics (strategy is too big a word for that) he is here to stay, ask Jim, and trust me :-)<br>
-I take this opportunity if you allow me, to apply a kiss on both of Plautus' cheeks ;O)
-Sincerely more belonging to Plautus, but yours, too - [[User:Irismeister|irismeister]] 00:31, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
-:Iris, if you'd bothered to read the discussion you elbowed your way into, you'd see that my statement referred to the fact that ''other than today with [[Iridology]]'' Raul and I had not protected pages for each other, to my recollection.  I have never called you a quack, and am not doing so now.  I have no idea what you mean by color-blind.  Why do you insist on insulting yourself by implying I made statements that I never did?  Are you so convinced that those who disagree with you are brutish enemies that when they fail to insult you, you imagine things they might have said?  If you think that wasn't an edit war, you obviously define "edit war" differently than this community has.  Your third point is so convoluted that I do not understand the allegation you are making.  I believe that my statements, which I have always endeavored to keep factual and aimed at demanding truthful, clear statements from you, are in perfect compliance with Wikiquette, except for the rare instance in which I realized I had misspoken and apologized.  I have asked Jim about you, as you suggested. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 00:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-----
-My dear genuine friend,<br>
-My left elbow is delicately resting on a 17th century mahogany desk, and my right elbow is on a piece of furniture which the French keep calling ''un Davenport'' for obscure reasons. But this is Paris, a place where mysteries, from the catacombs to the general iris model of the Hausmannian city are legion. Should not delve myself into such magnificent mystery, let alone a conversation you had with Plautus, related ''par voie de consequence'' to our entertaining and so re-socializing commerce this evening. Protecting or not protecting, defense or accusation, who cares, really ? I don't. As one of my favorite authors, so unjustly pointed to as a leftist by the neocon cabal once wrote, ''as long as real issues are not allowed to enter into debate, what's the purpose in a debate ?''. No, I am not convinced at all that those who disagree with me are brutish enemies and the proof is your kind consideration of my case for quackery and misrepresentations. I much enjoy the moment when they fail to insult me. I imagine things they might have said, like com'on, iris, you are not a nutcase, you are not a quack, you are not semiliterate, you are not '''quote-full-of-s*** all the time-unquote'''. I believe that even if you didn't say those nasty things yourself, having seen them with certified magnanimity, uttered as they were by a clique of our fellow editors, you'd care to just once, you know, just once make a new, more solid tradtion of no-name-calling. I imagine them kind, and considerate, just like you are, and as such, I enjoy your refreshing company, much unlike some other fellow editors who can only articulate four-letter words like STOP (referring to my editing.) Although I am much worse than you think and in the silence of the night, unseen, I often break the necks of flies, hunt croaches and run after mice, I have no habit of insulting myself. Also I believe that someone who observes a wrong being done and remains silent about it is as guilty as those who committed those wrong deeds themselves. Well, that's about all I wanted to say. It's 02:21 in the morning here in Paris, and with your permission I will go hunting for other rodents than the optical brand (of a well known corporation) still firmly resting in the palm of my left hand. If you wish, tomorrow I will explain color, color blindness and other interesting medical issues for you, as related to iridology, alternative medicine and our budding spring relationship, so far from the winter of our discontent. Who knows, if you stop asking me silly questions and say for the record I'm not a quack I might even talk  ice hockey or send a reprint of my latest article :-) Sincerely, [[User:Irismeister|irismeister]] 01:27, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)