Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::: I'm afraid there is no comparison between the signature of, say, Radiant! and a random set of Chinese (?) characters. It is presumed that the signature reflects the name of your account, or some part thereof. Digwuren's signature does not reflect anything of the sort. Furthermore, the editors mentioned by you are in good standing, something which cannot be said about either Suva and Digwuren. It certainly looked like they were trying to obfuscate their real identities on the noticeboard. Given the background, I'm not surprised by Bishonen's reaction at all. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: I'm afraid there is no comparison between the signature of, say, Radiant! and a random set of Chinese (?) characters. It is presumed that the signature reflects the name of your account, or some part thereof. Digwuren's signature does not reflect anything of the sort. Furthermore, the editors mentioned by you are in good standing, something which cannot be said about either Suva and Digwuren. It certainly looked like they were trying to obfuscate their real identities on the noticeboard. Given the background, I'm not surprised by Bishonen's reaction at all. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::I still maintain it takes only a mouseover. They weren't hiding their usernames, they weren't impersonating anyone. If they've done something wrong, condemn them for what they have done wrong, rather than something that is done every day by many wikipedians, yourself included (seeing the connection "Ghirla" has to "Ghirlandajo" is one thing, guessing the latter from the former is quite another). --—] 00:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::I still maintain it takes only a mouseover. They weren't hiding their usernames, they weren't impersonating anyone. If they've done something wrong, condemn them for what they have done wrong, rather than something that is done every day by many wikipedians, yourself included (seeing the connection "Ghirla" has to "Ghirlandajo" is one thing, guessing the latter from the former is quite another). --—] 00:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:Since I was the first one to mention the fact that Suva had changed his signature, which may have made it more difficult to see the connection to the Digwuren RFC, and someone may bring up my signature is not connected to my nickname either, I feel I may say a few words here. I know Ghirla's signature has been stable for some time. Personally, mine has always been what it is (a Belarusian battle cry from a famous Polish book) but experience with nationalist editing has turned me more and more German, so I recently switched to the nick name I used on five other wikis. I am still using the old signature so as not to confuse people who know me from earlier discussions. Now compare that to what happened at that AFD: 3 of the Korp! members seem to have suddenly changed their signature, Alexia Death the Grey being the third member concerned. Digwuren even changed in the middle of the discussion. Unless Digwuren has started work on Chinese Misplaced Pages, I fail to see any other reason for that change than the fact that they want to avoid being associated with that RFC, or with disruption elsewhere () on Misplaced Pages. Digwuren has been blocked before for stalking Petri, so AGF does not apply. --] 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 01:59, 20 September 2007
Notwithstanding the above, you do not in fact have new messages. fnord.
This talk page is automatically archived by... um, someone. apparently Shadowbot3. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Random832/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
I, Deon555, award Random832 with this Da Vinci Barsntar, for his awesome monobook work. He helped me solve a nice little script issue I was having, fixed the lot, and it works awesomely. Thanks heaps, and keep up the good work! — Deon555desk03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Christianity Explored has been created and deleted twice - I think with two entirely separate articles - and I gather that the last to be deleted was a no-contest deletion as a spammy article with no assertion of notability. I haven't seen it of course, since it was deleted.
IMO Christianity Explored is notable and Wiki should have a good article about it ... but rather than leap in where Angels fear to tread (or fly?) I have created a personal sandbox page to draft something.
I would be grateful for your views - I am contacting all those who commented in the last deletion debate, as you will have seen the previous article.
Hello again Random832. An administrator asked us to quit the talk on the actual page. Please write me a note (below) if you care to continue the discussion from where it was redirected (I will watch your page here for some time to check if you want to respond). Otherwise, Nice
talking to you. Take care and good luck. With kind greetings, former BMJ. --85.89.80.14019:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"Please, Random: Both man and woman have the same INTELLECTUAL capabilities. Is that a problem for you? If it is, please say so, and this debate ends here."
To say a man and woman have the same intellectual capabilities, that is, that there is no difference correlated to gender is one thing. To say whether Albert Einstein (a man) and Britney Spears (a woman), for example, or any other particular two individuals, have the same intellectual capabilities is quite another, and trying to relate two claims is a straw man argument. And, furthermore, even if it IS true that everyone has the same intelligence, that in no way follows from "equal in rights and dignity" - any more than "fire is hot" follows from "the sky is blue", though both are certainly true. --Random83220:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Random. Please again. Albert Einstein as an example contrary to Britney Spears relies on OPINION: TODAY, in a world reigned by modern academy ideas, most of us, with a free language, would say, yes, of course, Britney Spears cannot compete the genius of Albert Einstein. But that is not because of INTELLIGENCE, Random. Please. It is because of OPINION, because of SUBJECT, because of FOCUS on the matter. Britney can sing, can’t she? What is/was Einstein to that? See? OPINION. Not Intelligence, again.
Right, but singing talent and intelligence are two different things. Why is "intelligence" such a magic word that it's a matter of opinion - I mean, take athletic ability - it's a matter of opinion whether being able to jump higher or lift more weight is worth anything, but not whether one person is able to do more than another - how about I concede that it's a matter of opinion whether being intelligent matters, but not so much on whether one person can be more intelligent than another --Random83221:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Note, Random:
1.”Equal in dignity and rights DO MEAN equal in ability”, my conclusion from (your contribution) before
2. ”everyone has the same intelligence”, your statement, recent
”Everyone has the same intelligence”, your sentence above, is, really to get down to pedantry, syntactical erroneous, because intelligence is a property of nature including the human brain — IF we recognize human rights: everyone has the same ability of intelligence (provided medically OK), because intelligence belongs to nature, not to us. Then the sentence fits OK. Would you agree to that?
IF you do, you, really, would NOT differentiate between ”singing” and ”intelligence”, because BOTH use the same mathematical foundation:
What does intelligence have to do with math. You don't think it does, I don't tihnk it does - so what are you talking about? --Random83223:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Random. Shame on you. Don’t you know that? I can tell you, exactly, what intelligence have to do with math. I can tell you. I can show you. But first. I would very much like you to REPEAT the request: Are you, really honest? No joke? No leg pulling? You mean you have no clue? Please, say it again.
Take your time, Random. Because I’m going to finish my day for now. Have been up for about 24 hours, so I will come back to you first thing ”tomorrow”, if you wish. (Don’t forget to repeat your request. I don’t believe you otherwise).
Put these two in nature under the stars, and there is no intellectual difference between them. Both have the same natural born ability to apprehend, to BE intelligent, to develop intelligence, but the don’t have the same point of view. There is no difference in intelligence, just in view. I think, Random, you (may) refer to social valuation, not to natural property as I do. I think you know what I mean. If not, please clarify, even more.
(meanwhile) In case you wonder: I would say like this, if someone asked me to ”define” intelligence (see also intelligence in Misplaced Pages, not so bad really). Please object if you find it noteworthy: Intelligence is nature: its history of evolution, the building of elements and forms, the birth of organic life and its diversity of organisms, the top crown beauty: woman. You didn’t miss that, did you? The stars in the universe. That is intelligence. The child. That is intelligence. We die. Nature, intelligence, survive. We wake up to her. And we go to sleep in her. BMJ--85.89.80.14021:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If you’re still here - what I don’t understand is this: Clearly, not everyone has the same mathematical ability. So you seem to be arguing that intelligence is not based on mathematical ability. Yet, as far as I can see, no-one you’ve been arguing with has been of the belief that intelligence is a matter of mathematical ability. It’s almost as if we’re talking past each other —Random83200:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Signatures
If you have any objections regarding my signature, I'm all ears. And please remember that not every IRC chatter needs to be defended on ANI in haste. --Ghirla23:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with your sig, it just seemed a bit hypocritical of you to complain of someone else using Cyrillic in their sig. I'm not sure what you mean about IRC. —Random83223:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It does not require any knowledge of cyrillics to read my name in the signature. Not so with Suva, while Digwuren's signature is completely disconnected from his user name. This does make a difference, doesn't it? I'm surprised that I need to explain this to you. --Ghirla23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
(I can continue this discussion on here or on my userpage, whichever you prefer) - It takes only a mouseover to read the usernames in either. I think it is a slippery slope. Is Redvers's signature (REDVEЯS) acceptable? What about JzG, whose signature reads simply "Guy"? How about User:Radiant!'s, which I mention only because it lacks a punctuation mark present in his actual username. (I see what you mean about IRC now, though, it's worth mentioning that I've been in and out of #wikipedia in the past week and seen not a breath of this "campaign of harassment" - this was, indeed, my first encounter with any of you that I was aware of) --—Random83200:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid there is no comparison between the signature of, say, Radiant! and a random set of Chinese (?) characters. It is presumed that the signature reflects the name of your account, or some part thereof. Digwuren's signature does not reflect anything of the sort. Furthermore, the editors mentioned by you are in good standing, something which cannot be said about either Suva and Digwuren. It certainly looked like they were trying to obfuscate their real identities on the noticeboard. Given the background, I'm not surprised by Bishonen's reaction at all. --Ghirla00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I still maintain it takes only a mouseover. They weren't hiding their usernames, they weren't impersonating anyone. If they've done something wrong, condemn them for what they have done wrong, rather than something that is done every day by many wikipedians, yourself included (seeing the connection "Ghirla" has to "Ghirlandajo" is one thing, guessing the latter from the former is quite another). --—Random83200:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Since I was the first one to mention the fact that Suva had changed his signature, which may have made it more difficult to see the connection to the Digwuren RFC, and someone may bring up my signature is not connected to my nickname either, I feel I may say a few words here. I know Ghirla's signature has been stable for some time. Personally, mine has always been what it is (a Belarusian battle cry from a famous Polish book) but experience with nationalist editing has turned me more and more German, so I recently switched to the nick name I used on five other wikis. I am still using the old signature so as not to confuse people who know me from earlier discussions. Now compare that to what happened at that AFD: 3 of the Korp! members seem to have suddenly changed their signature, Alexia Death the Grey being the third member concerned. Digwuren even changed in the middle of the discussion. Unless Digwuren has started work on Chinese Misplaced Pages, I fail to see any other reason for that change than the fact that they want to avoid being associated with that RFC, or with disruption elsewhere () on Misplaced Pages. Digwuren has been blocked before for stalking Petri, so AGF does not apply. --Pan Gerwazy01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
