Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:41, 17 October 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Til Eulenspiegel, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

--Danski14 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to months old comments on talk pages

Doing so is fairly useless and will not be seen by anyone. If you wish to bring up a new issue, start a new section. —Centrx→talk • 18:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NPA ("No Personal Attack") concerns, indeed... (moved from Talk:Noah's Ark by User:KillerChihuahua)

1. With this edit, User:Orange Marlin referred to me as "some highly POV editor" without exactly knowing what my private views are, because I had restored the statement detailing what religions the belief in Noah's Ark is found in.
2. With this edit, User:Filll wrote: If an obscure minority extremist religion like the "Mormons" venerates the Ark story and declares it to be "true", this proves nothing, and some might take it as a very serious strike against its veracity, given the Mormon track record on many other issues. (Underscoring mine.) This is a reportable violation of Misplaced Pages policy, and betrays open hostility.
3. With this edit, User Filll wrote: :It is too bad that you are incomprehensible. Oh well. I guess I did not expect much else. This is also an ad hominem personal attack. In the same edit he added: gallons and gallons of blood have been spilt by people with your kind of viewpoint. Without even exactly knowing what religion I belong to, if any, he feels confident enough to spread accusatory, reportable slander against my person, in default of any kind of logical argument.
4. He continued the blatant ad hominem with this edit where he stated: Hmm...And I guess that assuming you subscribe to a religion is some sort of terrible slander against you, equivalent to spitting on you. In such case, it is best that I leave you alone in your reveries and fantasies.
5. Not to be outdone, User:Orange Marlin, in denying that User:Filll had made apersonal attack against me, then referred to me as "pathetic" in this edit:
6. Orange Marlin then made this very strange edit, stating: It's amusing that their faith is so weak that any challenge to their view of the universe, obviously means their faith has no meaning. Well, obviously their faith was weak to begin with. This is very strange, because as I have never revealed whether I have any faith and if so, that would be strictly private and none of your business, just as whatever faith you choose is none of my business. But the remarks clearly reveal some kind of innate hostility against those in the world who do profess some sort of faith, or an express desire to weaken or deride that faith.
7. I, Til Eulenspiegel, having noted all of these and also several other comments of theirs, fairly made the observation at WP:LDS that these editors do not hide their hostility against people of faith. And just for that, you come in as if with authority of judge, jury and executioner all in one, and inform me that I am in violation of NPA. This is truly a sad day in hypocrisy, wikipedians. Til Eulenspiegel 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this here as article talk pages are not the best place for resolving disputes concerning anything but content of the article itself. Neither is the LDS Wikiproject. I am certain you saw that I admonished the other editors as well (and you may find reassuance in the knowledge that on at least one previous occasion, I removed one of OrangeMarlin's posts, without even moving it anywhere for discussion.) Personal attacks and incivility are best handled through other venues; counter-attacks and escalation serve neither the injured editor nor the project as whole. While I understand your frustration, I suggest you take a little time to consider what your primary goals here are. If you are here to promote a particular point of view, you are in the wrong place. I suggest one of the Christian Wikis instead. If you are here to become mired in flame wars, UseNet will be a more tolerant venue. If you are here to help write an encyclopedia and ensure accuracy and neutrality of the content, you are not going to acheive those goals by sinking into mud-slinging and ad hom wars, nor cries of censorship, suppresion, or complaints of executioners. Please let me know if I can help you in any way here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs).

Formal Complaint

• Yes, there is something I need help with, actually. I would like to press a formal complaint against User:Filll for making this statement in blatant violation of policy: "If an obscure minority extremist religion like the "Mormons" venerates the Ark story and declares it to be "true", this proves nothing, and some might take it as a very serious strike against its veracity, given the Mormon track record on many other issues."

The fact that you chose to admonish only me and AllenRoyBoy, but not User:Filll, does not exactly inspire great confidence in your impartiality as an admin -- so I will be seeking another admin who is truly impartial. Your impartiality is especially in question considering that you also removed the Book of Mormon from among the list of Scriptures that Mention the Ark, with your opinion that "The Mormons are a small minority and including their views here violates Undue weight. Gain consensus for desired changes before making them. This is FA, not Cleanup, level article". My only intention from the beginning was to list Book of Mormon among all the other Scriptures where the Ark is specifically mentioned, which it is, not to write a religious tract or preach or push any religion whatsoever on non-believers. But the forces of intolerance have prevailed. Human history has repeatedly demonstrated in spades that whenever intolerant demagogues start spouting such language as "an obscure minority extremist religion like the ___", it would be very wise for that minority in question to leave the country quickly for their own safety. This is the language of intolerance, when what is sorely needed in the world now is tolerance for people who might believe differently or have different beliefs from ourselves. Is this not the fundamental reason that Misplaced Pages even has these basic policies in place, expressly forbidding such verbal attacks in the first place? Yet as admin, you chose not to warn him for this alarming statement, but rather to warn and threaten me, and only for actually daring to notice. So much for your supposed neutrality. I now demand that this incident be investigated by some higher authority than you. Til Eulenspiegel 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The first step in dispute resolution is always to attempt to resolve issues with the other party, not to "press a formal complaint" against them. I did not admonish "only me (Til) and AllenRoyBoy", I admonished you specifically, and everyone else collectively. Feel free to seek a second, or even a third opinion, or request uninvolved administrators examine my actions at the Administrator's noticeboard for incidents. That you have utterly failed to gain consensus, or indeed make a coherent case on talk, for your desired changes does not constitute "intolerance" in the least, nor is it an attack. One thing which seems to be a recurring theme with you is your quickness at attacking others who do not agree with you or even those who do not understand your points, accusing them of supression, censorship, hostility to religion, bias, and so on ad nauseam. This is not productive in the least, and I wonder why, after having been informed several times that you are merely coming across as an argumentative, hostile, accusatory self-proclaimed victim that you are not attempting to find an approach likely to meet with more success. Your "demand" that someone with "more authority" than myself is utterly useless - no such person exists except for Jimbo or the Arbcom, and neither will be interested in your complaints. Instructions for opening an Rfc against me are here. And finally, you accuse me of threatening you. Please either provide a dif of where I have done so, or retract this accusation. KillerChihuahua 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt threatened by this where you wrote "Also, please note that Til has combined his concerns for accuracy with an unwarranted and completely unacceptable personal attack, accusing editors who disagree with his desire to include a specific paragraph about the LDS of "hostility to all forms of faith." Til, I remind you again, please comment on the content, not the contributor. If you feel an edit is inappropriate, address the edit, not the editor. Consider this a NPA warning."

The fact that you saw fit to warn only me, when to this date I have not made any personal attack, and wrote "Consider this an NPA warning" seems to indicate that you are ready to block me for the slightest pretext when I haven't done anything wrong. The others were engaging in much personal attacks and ad hominem against me as detailed above, and I was not responding in kind, but trying to address the actual argument. The words of mine in question, "hostility to all forms of faith" were an observation I made on the WP:LDS project, and a fair one, since they had both just broadcast their opinion that "all religion is myth, because it isn't scientific" and many, many similar comments. The conversation on your talk page clearly shows that you hold your buddies whom you yuck it up with and slap on the back, to a much lower standard and look the other way when they call me "pathetic", call Mormons "extremist", etc. but at the same time you hold me to a much higher standard, officially warning me just for complaining on the WP:LDS project as you saw from my contrib list. The double standard suggests that perhaps you know that your friends would never be able to meet the same high standard you hold me to, because they just can't help themselves from being offensive, so it's allowed for them, but not allowed for me to notice or say anything when they do. Since your clear pattern is to benefit and make excuses for your friends who share your opinion, while coming down harshly on those who you even suspect might hold a different opinion, I can only conclude from all this that you seem to be one of the worst and most biased sysops in all of wikipedia, and that disagreeing with you is downright dangerous. Til Eulenspiegel 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. I am "one of the worst and most biased sysops in all of wikipedia, and that disagreeing with you is downright dangerous"? I give up. This is beyond nonsense. I have better things to do with my time. I have tried to assume good faith with you, but this is absurd. KillerChihuahua 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, it is true that while Misplaced Pages does have higher management, they refuse to deal with these simple issues, administrators like myself and Killer are the only people who you really get to deal with in this situation, so relax now. User:Zscout370 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm just dropping by from WP:3O. I would say that editors on both sides of the issue need to take a deep breath and reread WP:CIVIL. Also, the paragraph in question does not violate Misplaced Pages:Undue weight. —Remember the dot 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to join the discussion on Talk:Noah's Ark about the content dispute. As far as civility, a reminder to "editors on both sides" to be civil is not particularly helpful in this instance. Both sides of what? Which editors? If you are speaking of the civility issues Til listed above, that was all on Talk:Noah's Ark, and the situation there has calmed and there have been no futher incivilities. None of those editors, so far as I know, are reading this (Til's) talk page, so reminders to them to follow a policy are not going to reach the intended party. KillerChihuahua 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for not being more helpful. I was thinking of Filll and Til Eulenspiegel in particular, so if there are no longer ill feelings between these editors then great. I do think that calling you "one of the worst and most biased sysops in all of wikipedia" is an overreaction. —Remember the dot 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after I posted my admonishment on Talk:Noah's Ark, Filll posted on my talk page an acknowledgement and his intentions to "be good" and has done so - there is now no further hostility or civility issue there. In that respect, I feel my actions on the article talk page have been successful. KillerChihuahua 20:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They have been. Til Owlsmirror needs to chill a bit and stop playing the martyr card. •Jim62sch• 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can criticise me all I want, but I know I have done nothing wrong, so your what is your criticism accomplishing? Why do you seem to spend so much of your time criticising people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, while applauding and cheering those who openly flout the rules of civility, is what I want to know. Something is very very rotten here when people can slap me right in the face, and I am immediately the one perceived to be at fault because I do not offer my other cheek. There have to be some kind of standards that apply to everyone without such arbitrary whim, corruption and favoritism, and this sorely needs to be addressed. I want many, many more admins to see this talkpage and take note of what is really going on here and who is involved. Til Eulenspiegel 23:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Relax

Owl dude. You're heading for a massive coronary at this rate. Killer Chihuahua is one of the better editors around for making certain WP:NPOV is not violated. Your comments could be classified as uncivil, so you should just relax. KC does not play favorites. KC keeps the peace in more edits than you can imagine. And frankly, Mormonism is really a small religion, and we don't have the bandwidth to write about the viewpoints of every Christian sect that may be out there. And given the LDS church's stance on Evolution, I doubt you'd find much dispute about this article with the LDS leadership. Orangemarlin 23:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your unsubstantiated opinions to yourself. I am not headed for a coronary, I am in fine health thank you. I have not been uncivil even once; others have been uncivil toward me without cause and so far I have alone been reprimanded and demonized when I am innocent, innocent I tell you. Whatever wrongdoing it is you are criticizing me for now, I didn't do it. It seems like rules such as WP:CIVIL are not there to apply to you or Filll, because you have some kind of special card, or perhaps know the right people, that allows you to call any editors whatever names you want, and blast off hate speech about groups of millions of people all you want, with total impunity. No, the rules like WP:CIVIL, as I am learning from this incident, only apply to the editors like me, who are not so privileged as you. This is favoritism plain and simple but I wouldn't expect you to be the one to admit it. Til Eulenspiegel 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My unsubstantiated opinions about what? I tried to be nice, and you react in the same way. I don't call anyone a name, no one plays favorites, and you really need to get off this point. Orangemarlin 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you can try to deny it but the permanent record is there and it says differently. Either the rules apply evenly to everyone, and not just for some, or this is all a big sham and there's no point in having any rules. This has got to be resolved. Til Eulenspiegel 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, I came here from WP:3, and while I don't feel that is the right forum for this issue, and I'm not comfortable removing the request there. Still, I do think it's inappropriate to comment on another user in the method above. It's rather demeaning at best. While it's certainly laudable to try to defuse an issue, that choice of language is unlikely to be effective. I take no stance of anything else being said, I merely find it ill-advised to speak of another user's health like that. It's highly personal, and likely to be seen as an offensive intrusion. Mister.Manticore 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There are plenty of appropriate avenues for seeking outside help with these issues, but WP:3O is not really one of them. For one thing, you apparently have more than two parties involved. I suggest WP:RFC or WP:RFM. Adrian M. H. 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already suggested Rfc, I also suggested AN/I since he complains I am a bad administrator, and frankly, RFM is not appropriate. There is nothing to mediate. As a member of the mediation committee myself, I can tell you this will not be accepted. KillerChihuahua 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, I'm thinking it might be best if folks just dis-engaged a bit. I think that further discourse at this stage might just make for more trouble. Mister.Manticore 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing the part where I found Til being highly disruptive and insulting on Talk:Noah's Ark, I posted asking him specifically to abide by NPA, and admonishing other editors en masse. The other editors immediately responded by ceasing any and all potentially argumentative and personal posts, and have been concentrating on the content, not the contributor. Til has responded as you see above. He seems utterly clueless that his continually inflammatory and hostile rantings are not acceptable nor, which is more to the point, has he ceased his disruptive pattern of posting elsewhere. If I "disengage" as you put it, I am saying, basically, "Ok, this one is rude, hostile and violates CIVIL and NPA continually, but because he has chosen me to be his nemesis and accused me of being a poor administrator, I'd better just let him go on his rude, hostile, trolling way and leave him alone." In what way does this benefit this user, who has not yet learned we value civility here, or the project as a whole? KillerChihuahua 10:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear, but to repeat myself I'm not taking any stance of anything else being said except the specific comment above. I was simply saying that a statement like "You're heading for a massive coronary at this rate" is unlikely to defuse a tense situation, and that given my observations here, it might be best to dis-engage a bit for all sides. Having a problem is one thing. Resolving it? That's another. Yes, I know it's important to not allow personal attacks, coercion and bullying to occur, these are very important and valuable things, and I'm quite concerned about them myself. (I've seen quite a few, they disturb me every time) But it's also important to make sure that the response to it is effective in resolving the problem. Speaking for myself, I know it's a hard road to travel sometimes, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. And in this case, the above statement, which I replied to, isn't likely to resolve anything, but rather to give offense. Does this apply to anything you've said? I don't know, but given what I see just in this section (let alone the page) I am concerned about escalation here. Thus I suggest all sides disengage a bit. This applies to you, and to Til Eulenspiegel, and to everybody else. If you do see something of further concern, perhaps you might care to contact someone else and let them speak on it? I'd be willing to do so if you wish. Mister.Manticore 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so at this point. Til ignored my advice to take it to AN/I, although he stated explicitly he wanted other administrators to take a look. He went to Jimbo's talk page instead, apparently assuming that I told him that was inappropriate for his views due to some convoluted idea that I was trying to avoid examination of my posts. However, on Jimbo's talk page, he finally posted a diff to a post when I asked, and I clarified for him, explaining how his interpretation was inaccurate. He has not since directly posted to me, but he has also ceased his baseless attacks on me. I believe that he may be "seeing the light" and reconsidering his interpretation of events. I have hope. :) At this time, I think it would be best to wait and see how he approaches his interactions with others from this point forward. And I hope I have made it clear that if he wishes clarification on anything, or if I can help in any way, I am available. KillerChihuahua 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, never mind. He's now stated that if he doesn't get an answer from Jimbo himself, it is proof that Misplaced Pages is "a place where all kinds of bigotry is not only rampant but encouraged by the administration, as long as the target is not one of the "favoured" groups." and he plans to spam the world with that breaking news. I give up. Have at if you think it will do any good at all. KillerChihuahua 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Regarding Noah's Ark & Jimbo's talk page. I have not followed the debates you have been involved in about Noah's Ark, an outside editor invited me to have a look at the discussion thread on Jimbo's talk page.

Let me say that some of the comments directed at you may have been a little out of line. However, the correct response to that is not to lash out publicly for the slight against you/your church. More effective would have been a calm, private note to the user involved, asking him/her to tone down his/her rhetoric. Even more effective, it is sometimes best to just ignore such personal slights, and carry on with working on the encyclopedia. As to the general attitude toward religion on wikipedia -- I have never found this to be a place where I have been discriminated against for my faith, or found open hostility (except in cases that represent the minority) toward religion. What is requested is that facts about religion be presented in a neutral tone, based on verifiable information from reliable sources. How I describe a given fact about religion/faith on Sunday morning is very different than how I describe it in this community. Simply put, the standards here are specific and set -- and I agree to abide by those standards when I edit. The standards here more closely represent how religion is described in academic settings, rather than how it is described in religious settings -- and that can be a big adjustment for people who haven't studied religion in an academic setting.

Please calm down, and consider whether or not your current actions are producing the desired results. If they are not, perhaps it is time to try a different approach -- an approach that is a little calmer and a little less accusatory. If you would like to talk about this current situation, please feel free to leave me a note any time. -- Pastor David _(Review) 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from your remarks that you are commenting off the top of your head without having looked at the situation, because they are totally inappropriate to this situation. I stand by everything I have said already; I have done nothing wrong and do not need to be lectured. I am well aware of what a "neutral setting" is, and I have made no attempt to force my own views anywhere, in fact I haven't even stated what my own "private" views are. As for repeatedly telling me to calm down, I have been perfectly calm all this time. The perception of me being so frenzied I can hardly type words without having a myocardial infarction, is only a perception that certain individuals have projected onto me. This isn't about the personal slights either, although those are also inappropriate, they would have been overlooked. This is about 1) the intolerant hate speech that is directed against all people of faith, which seems to be routine here on the talkpages, and 2) the administration response, being to single only ME out for chastisement, when all the mud and vitriol was being slung AT me, and none BY me. That is the basis for my accusations. Now if John the Baptist himself, or Elijah, came onto wikipedia and started telling people they are all doomed to hell for committing sin, your response to him, as your role that you play, might well be to tell John or Elijah "perhaps it is time to try a different approach -- an approach that is a little calmer and a little less accusatory." But that's not me. I have done or said nothing that is inappropriate to an academic setting. Please do a little more research first before commenting blindly. Til Eulenspiegel 20:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you felt that my comments were out of place or overly uninformed. That being said, I would continue to ask you -- as I would ask myself or anyone else -- are your current actions producing the desired results? And if not, wouldn't it be worth it to try another tack? Again, I apologize for what you obviously perceived to be an unwelcome intrusion on your talk page. Pastor David _(Review) 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA states "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians..."... My #1 "desired result" is that this would actually be true, and not just lip service. As long as there are some "special" editors whom it obviously does not apply to, who can say basically whatever they want about anyone, fully confident that there are "attack-dogs" ready to fend off anyone who complains about them, there is a continued problem. Til Eulenspiegel 00:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, while many of the comments against you may be offensive, it's just not effective to go around punishing folks for actions that while certainly regrettable, are not so unconscionable that they must be acted upon immediately. That said, I also find it a bit offensive when I'm told to calm down when while I may be upset, I do not consider myself out of control either. I also do see how it can be a problem when groups form cliques, effectively protecting their friends, while castigating those outside of it. I don't know whether that's the case or not here. I do however, think that things are obviously tense enough that it would help to let things calm down for everybody. Yes, it can be hard to take even well-meant advice when you see a wrong that you want righted, but sometimes it's worthwhile to just take a bit of time and get some distance from the problem. And yes, I do consider there to be a problem with the behavior of some people towards you. Heck, I'd say they behaved similarly towards me. People aren't perfect though, so I can only hope they get wiser. Mister.Manticore 02:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding... if I really wanted them punished I would probably be pursuing them in the various arbitration places, but instead, I just wanted the founder of the project to know and see what this place is really turning into, more and more all the time. Did you notice as soon as I tried that, I immediately got a number of eds jumping in to write me off for various reasons and trying to discourage him from bothering to look at this page, like they don't want him to see it or something. Maybe it worked... Til Eulenspiegel 02:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you very much for your message. I do understand that "rubbed raw" feeling, and I did not at all take your comments personally. I very much appreciate your integrity and civility in your comment on my talk page, and most whole-heartedly accept your apology. I hope that our paths will cross under better circumstances next time, and perhaps we will find ourselves working together on an article or project. Warmest regards, Pastor David _(Review) 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WHERE IS AFRICA LOCATED PLEASE TELL ME I FORGET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.244.236 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Physike

Could you please comment at Talk:Physics#Physike? I hope we can come up with a good compromise. Thanks, Gnixon 16:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deucalion

Wow, nice work on Deucalion! KillerChihuahua 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Zechariah

HI, thanks for your attention to the disambiguation page Zechariah. Actually, the Islamic prophet Zakariyya is the father of John the Baptist, not the author of the Book of Zechariah. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should have read it more carefully... Thanks for fixing it... ! Til Eulenspiegel 14:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Code of Ur-Nammu

This is an interesting topic, which I didn't know about. I wonder if you could add more in-line citations, though, as there is only one and no general reference is provided. Did you get the other information from the same source and not list it, or from something else? Rigadoun (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is Africa located? I forget —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.244.236 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Code of Ur-Nammu

On 11 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Code of Ur-Nammu, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mosiac law

Hi. The 'eye-for-an-eye' in Mosaic law was not Lex Talonis, though that's a common misperception. Someone who caused the loss of a body part had to pay the victim the VALUE of the part. They were not similarly mutilated. See http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=479511 FiveRings 00:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Canaan

The claims made are from the British Museum's Series "People and Places" Series "Canaanites", the views of "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives" and the book "Abraham in History and Tradition", and are documented. Please demonstrate how these documents represent a POV when they are accpeted as legitimate secondary sources by most modern scholars of the Canaanites. John D. Croft 11:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The section was labelled "Modern Views on the Canaanites". The views presented have all been put forward since 1974. These clearly are modern views as they were not held in ancient times or in the Biblical corpus. The reference to the 1998 book on the Canaanites was by the British Museum. Are you accusing them of bias? Can you please show me how presenting these views as "modern" is a POV? John D. Croft 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Til Eulenspiegel it has already been stated that the majority of Haitians are of West-African descent. It is unneccessary to name the specifics of genetics seeing it is already clear. The term "West African" or "African" in general encompasses all of these tribes. It also takes away from the professional feel of the section. I greatly appreciate your input but the original statement derives from other encyclopedic works. Thanks for your insight. I hope you understand. Spyder00Boi 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The referenced information states "There were seven major groups: Wolof, Yoruba, Ashanti, Hausa, Mandinka, Ewe and Tuareg." You seem to have "decided" that readers do not need to know the names of the specific nations, and just writing "West African" is good enough, but I still fail to understand why. Please take this to the article discussion page, as this should involve all editors of the article, not just me. Til Eulenspiegel 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your stating of the specific groups defeats the term "West African". You might as well say directly say "95% of Haitians descend from the Wolof, Yoruba, Ashanti, Hausa, Mandinka, Ewe and Tuareg." That would be unencyclopedic. The four primary ancestries of Haitians and most other countries in the Caribbean and Latin America are "African/European/Arab as well as Amerindian (not much in Haiti's case. Spyder00Boi 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the discussion to the haiti talk page Spyder00Boi 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding salting the earth

In salting the earth article, I've changed the name of section "Historical examples" to more general term "Examples" to avoid source segregation but also to increase accuracy, because some sources may not be historical or reliable, such as religious sources. Is this okay? --Qsaw 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that compromise, but there is no reason to think other accounts of salting the earth are somehow any more reliable (or less religious) than the instance in the Tanakh. We know of the Assyrian examples only because of their inscriptions, dedicated to their own deities. There is a definite POV out there that if the Tanakh states something like this happened, then that is somehow solid evidence that it didn't happen. I don't understand the reasoning, but it is called 'minimalism', and it is a strong POV that is best avoided here if we are to strive for neutrality. Til Eulenspiegel 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge

Your edit summary was accurate. I have corrected my misphrasing. Thanks. Abecedare 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hammurabi

Hee hee, sorry if the revising I did confused you, I did some rearranging when adding references, moved some information up, and other info was repeated, so I just removed it, as it was given in the intro. 12:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mengistu

Hi,

I really don't see the point in not wanting Mengistu listed as the Negus's de facto successor. I am in no way suggesting that Mengistu was emperor (which he was not) or that he was legitimate, or even that he was a good guy. Quite simply, he was in power after Haile Selassie, so he should be listed as his de facto successor, while Amha Selassie of Ethiopia succeeded him de Jure. This is comparable to Mohammed Daoud Khan succeeding Mohammed Zahir Shah, Oliver Cromwell succeeding Charles I of England or the National Convention succeeding Louis XVI of France as holder of the executive power (however brutally). Succession boxes are made to be useful to anyone wanting to follow a chronology, in this case a chronology of ethiopian heads of state. Mengistu Haile Mariam already had Haile Selassie listed as his predecessor and I didn't make that up. It is absolutely not in my intention to be disrespectful to Haile Selassie as you seemed to suggest in your previous commentary. Regards, Wedineinheck 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Magog

Hey Til, I see you reverted my redirect of Magog (Bible) to Gog and Magog. I was initially going to merge it, since all things Magog are already covered in more detail at the other page, but there's really nothing to merge - almost everything there is covered more fully at the longer page, and what isn't, isn't sourced. I would almost go so far as to AfD Magog (Bible) as an unlikely search term for Magog. At any rate I commented at the talk page if you wish to respond.--Cúchullain /c 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Scythians, Sicambri and Franks

To my amazement you have written the following sentence on the Scythians-talkpage:

"I have indeed seen the primary source LHF, though I admit I do not have access to your favorite secondary sources, you know as well as I do there are plenty of others."

I am amazed, because if you indeed would have seen the LHF, that is the Liber Historiae Francorum, than you would have seen that this book explicitly states that Marcomer is the son of King Priam of Troy. However on the talkpage of the Sicambri you say I am using a strawmans argument when I wrote that it is not possible that man lives for 2000 years. Now how should I see this? Do you really have seen the LHF, more than vaguely and do you still launch a personal attack on me? Or is it that you haven't seen the LHF more than vaguely, or maybe not at all?

Furthermore: on the Sicambri page I have only used the most common secondary sources: That is the most cited ones. They are not my favorite sources. And indeed I know others. However non of that other sources say something really different than Wood, James or Wallace-Hadrill. Can you name a secondary source of a mayor, well cited scholar that disagrees with them? johanthon 12:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jonah

Hi there. Thanks for some good edits on the Jonah page. You were quite right that it was the similarities and not the differences between Gilgamesh and Jonah that were said to be minor - my mistake in the edit summary.

Still, I'm not sure about this. The sentence is cited to a book by Campbell (sadly not on my shelves). My question is, does Campbell attempt to draw parallels but admit that the similarities are minor? Or does Campbell attempt to draw parallels that somebody else thinks are minor? If it is the latter (which I suspect) then we need two citations, not one! Wavehunter 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I agree that the English etymology of worm is not relevant. As for whether Jonah is mythological, I would say he is as mythological as Jason, you might differ, but we can neither of us really know. Either way, your edit stands.

Changed, though, is the assertion that the similarities between Gilgamesh and Jonah are minor. This point was added by User:Kuratowski's Ghost. The original citation (which existed before I ever touched the page) made no such claim. (See Jonah, 28 August 2007.) I have left the point in as a separate sentence requiring a citation: without that it is POV (as I mentioned earlier) and should be omitted. I think readers can decide for themselves whether the similarities are major or minor.

I hope you'll agree that my other edits are worthwhile. Small text instead of superscript, and consistency in the version of the Bible quoted (avoiding confusion between Jonah/Jonas and fish/whale).

Do reply here, or come to my talk page, if you have something to say to me. I hope we can reach consensus. All the best, Wavehunter 02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as consensus, I am okay with the status quo after your last edit. Re your comment: "As for whether Jonah is mythological, I would say he is as mythological as Jason, you might differ, but we can neither of us really know." According to the Neutrality policy, what we editors may think is supposedly irrelevant - what matters is whether all significant P-O-Vs are described neutrally, and are cited. There is no significant POV today disputing that Jason is "mythological" AFAIK, but modern references arguing for the historicity of Jonah and the rest of the OT are easy to find, and speak for significant numbers of people today, so there is the difference.

KG's addition stating that there are few similarities between Jonah and Gilgamesh seems to me like a straightforward, inarguable fact that speaks for itself, but I won't quibble if you object or disagree with that, since apparently it isn't cited. Til Eulenspiegel 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (I read that there were attempts in Athens to revive the ancient Greek religion, but I don't think this has taken hold yet!) Best wishes to you and yours. Wavehunter 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Shem

Hello Til Eulenspiegel. You appear to know something about Shem. There is some very strange stuff still in the article, for example, about the Anglo-Saxons being descended from Shem. (A belief related to British Israelism, but certainly not a neutral bit of history). On Talk:Shem I proposed that the page be rolled back to a 15 July version. If you have time to offer an opinion, I would welcome your input on that Talk page. Since there are substantive edits since 15 July, I'd need to re-add those. Thanks, EdJohnston 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Counter-vandalism award

You get this award for all your hard work on reverting vandalism. This award was made for people who are good at vandalism fighting, and you are one of them. have a fun day! 1() 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mt Judi

My apologies for my misleqading edit summary - but it was due to laziness rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Just to clarify, I removed the photo because the connection of Durupinar with Judi is extremely recent, and putting a photo of that location rather than the traditional Judi is undue weight; as for the removal of the other material, it was because it was rather beside the main point. PiCo 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

Y Done. You might consider making your user page a redirect to your user talk page (i.e. #REDIRECT ]). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please create a redirect if you don't want a userpage. Most editors find red linked user pages to be quite annoying. --Strothra 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So who appointed you to go around making up user pages for the tons of editors who prefer not to be unwillingly forced to have any link? Til Eulenspiegel 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is annoying to the eye. There is nothing against the creation of a userpage, in fact pages in userspace belong to the Misplaced Pages community - see WP:USER. You should try to create one though, they can be quite useful to serious editors. --Strothra 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. — DIEGO 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not achieved a consensus on the talk page in support of your change. PLEASE STOP NOW or you will be blocked for edit warring and tendentious editing. — DIEGO 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)