Misplaced Pages

User talk:VeryVerily: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:31, 30 September 2004 editSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits weak. All nations conscript as justification for conscription?← Previous edit Revision as of 09:33, 30 September 2004 edit undoSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits weak. All nations conscript as justification for conscription?Next edit →
Line 216: Line 216:
I don't know if there is a more elegant way to "talk". I don't know if there is a more elegant way to "talk".
On my talk page you argued "In any case, Japan's decisions in this regard do not reflect on the legitimacy of killing civilians". This is obviously wrong unless you also admit that it is not legitimate to kill civilians that are in the military through conscription. I can agree with you if you concede that they are also innocent civilians. On my talk page you argued "In any case, Japan's decisions in this regard do not reflect on the legitimacy of killing civilians". This is obviously wrong unless you also admit that it is not legitimate to kill civilians that are in the military through conscription. I can agree with you if you concede that they are also innocent civilians.

"It is the fact that they are fighting and shooting at their enemy that makes them soldiers", hmmm, it must be something more mundane than that, since even soldiers in supply lines or at desks are considered legitimate targets. Perhaps it is the uniform? I wonder if the women and children conscripted in those factories wore uniforms? If so, then perhaps it is the specifics of the insignia?

Perhaps you are too accepting of things they way they are instead of demanding that they make sense.--] 09:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:33, 30 September 2004

Please add new messages at the bottom.
I reserve the right to post replies on this page instead of your user talk page, although I often don't.
Glacier, courtesy of User:Chmouel
"Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how."Mary Schmich
Selective general archival on occasion. Long additions subject to early archival.

Thanks for reverting my user page! Angela 09:05, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)


I, for one, appreciate your effort on the attacks on humanitarian workers page!2toise 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! :) VV 20:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bravo verily, Verily Verily, for your very worthwhile IMHO recent addition to the Genocide page. Puts a lot of controversies in context. TonyClarke 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Lodar, VeryVerily. Good suggestion on not yanking paragraphs out of an already contentious article without first going to the Talk page. By the way, I had already seen that the passage had been deleted, so I could figure out what your comment meant. Other people may be puzzled, however. Good luck, and keep on trying to talk sense to people. P0M


Regarding your recent edit to Bush family conspiracy theory: Oh, yeah, sure, go and bring evidence into it. What a spoilsport! ;-) -- Cyan 05:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Peak 05:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): Thanks for your responses at User_talk:Peak#Multi-regional hypothesis. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I will post some responses there rather than here, but in the meantime, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the general tone of your response, and hope that we can resolve any remaining points of misunderstanding amicably. Peak


Thanks, I did not dare doing that with the GWB National Guard accusations.

;-) -- VV 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the terror word at March 11, ...Madrid. I was getting very angry. Pfortuny 08:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

KR

User:Hanpuk is busy trying to whitewash the Khmer Rouge article based on topics we have went over there and other places before. I've run out of reverts for the day. --mav 06:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


your thoughts might be usefull over at Talk:Khmer Rouge PMA 22:47, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I didn't even notice until just now, when I checked the history. Meelar 06:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Rigged"

I like your latest wording best. I hope Meelar agrees. Cecropia 01:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


VV, I'm in my own little drama right now and I'd rather not step into the middle of another one. Sorry. RickK

lousy English

I would like to express our (collective) great gratitude to all Wikipedians who correct grammatical errors and unidiomatic expressions from pages where ESL-wikipedians have put their mark on the prose. Some foreigners' English is worse than others' — this is not politically correct to state, but I do it anyways — and that of Finns belong to the worst. Thank you! Thank you very much!

If your work on Continuation War wasn't enough (and frankly, that very article is far from ready with respect to factual content and NPOV, imho), or if you would like more praise, take a look at: User:Tuomas#Articles_in_need_of_a_check_by_a_native_English_speaker ;-))

/Tuomas 08:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Grammer fix

I don't mind the Grammer fix, as a matter of fact I encourge you to fix my grammer because I have a habit of typing fast. Thanks Comarde Nick

compliments

I wanted to compliment you on your civility, something which should be standard on the wiki, but in practice is rare enough to earn my compliments. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Mediation re
Indo-European

The article says "The Basque language is unusual in that it does not appear to be related to any known languages." Why do you insist in inserting "living"? Basque does not appear to be related to any known languages, period. It is of course true, that if we go back two or three thousand years, there may be languages to which Basque would then seem to be related, but we don't have any remains of such languages and hence "living" is unnecessary, as Basque does not appear to be related to any dead languages either. Vice 21:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See "aquitanian" at . VV 21:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good point - I was unaware of that. Perhaps then you should include a short reference to Aquitanian in the sentence? Vice 22:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We could, but I don't see the point. It's just an offhand reference in a list of non-IE languages in Europe, a bit of a tangent. Deeper details belong in the Basque article, which the reader seeking further information can click on. VV 22:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
RfA Nonsense

Thank you for the kind words on RfA. I'm not going to dignify the attacks with a response, but I appreciate that you stepped up to speak.

If you're curious: I first became active during the Quickpoll saga. I grew interested in the administrative workings -- but I saw that people tended to vandalize each other's pet articles, so I decided it would be wise to maintain separate accounts for contributing versus talking. The community has affirmed this practice on numerous occasions, so I feel I'm on solid ground -- and I use my real name and valid email for voting and controversial discussions, so I daresay I've got a better claim to legitimacy than certain other users.

As I said, I won't dignify the personal attacks on RfA, because they're irrelevant to the merits of the nomination. But thanks again for stepping to my defense. I noticed it, and I do appreciate it. Cribcage 17:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adminship nomination

Hi, are you aware that somebody has just put you up as a candidate on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship? I don't know how you feel about this, but I think you probably already know that you wouldn't receive consensus support, and the nomination is not really a good idea. If I knew that you were opposed, I would cancel or remove the nomination myself, but for now that would be premature. Anyway, I really wish people would follow instructions and actually ask permission before nominating people. --Michael Snow 22:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's not irregular at all for nominees to leave nominations up for a while before making up their minds how to respond. All in all, I think you handled the situation very well. My concern is mostly that quite a few people who are in similar positions positively object to being nominated because they know that it will just promote an attack-fest. That's why I consider it important that people at least ask for permission before nominating.
While nominations are sometimes removed by others when consensus support is obviously lacking, on RfA I often find it best to defer to the nominee's wishes. In the past, I've removed at least one nomination on sight because I knew the nominee would object and the discussion would quickly turn ugly. On the more contentious nominations, the bulk of the damage is indeed done fairly quickly by the initial swarm, but even later there will still be more piling on. I can think of at least a few people who I would have expected to add some vehement opposition had things continued. --Michael Snow 16:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my adminship nomination. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger

Acting in response to a request from User:Stargoat, I've unprotected Henry Kissinger (after mistakenly editing it myself before seeing the protection, though all I did was add links). Just thought I'd notify those who were active on Talk:Henry Kissinger. Best, ] 16:51, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. VV 23:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's latest

Neutrality posted a comment to User talk:Rex071404. By this edit, Rex changed it, to make it appear that Neutrality was confessing to "intentionally causing trouble." Neutrality tried to correct it, but Rex reverted and reverted and reverted to keep his falsehood in. When Lyellin mildly remonstrated with Rex over this, Rex responded with this edit, putting harsh words in Lyellin's mouth as well.

I mention all this because you seem to be about the only person on Misplaced Pages who's had any contact with Rex whom he doesn't regard as being out to get him. If you were to drop Rex a note, letting him know that this behavior is completely over the top, perhaps he'd desist. It's obviously not your problem and has no claim on your time, but if you were to invest a couple minutes now, you could conceivably save a lot of other people a lot of time down the road. Thanks for considering it. JamesMLane 18:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You might as well not bother. Soon after I left you the above message, Rex indulged himself in this edit, his most vile yet. As a result, the matter is now in RfC: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Rex0714042.

By the way, I hope this was clear in my intial post, but I didn't raise the matter here because I thought you had anything to do with Rex's misconduct or because I thought you've ever done anything like that. Quite the contrary -- I think that, although your political views seem closer to Rex's than to mine, you have the basic civility that he lacks. I feel sorry for you because sometimes, finding yourself on the same side as Rex, you'll be adversely impacted by the way he makes everyone on that side look unreasonable. It's guilt by association, and completely unfair to responsible conservatives, but as a practical matter, I expect Rex will often have that effect. JamesMLane 21:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey VV, thanks for talking with Rex. I really liked the advice you gave him. If he took it, I would quickly rescind my endorsement. However, I am not satisfied with his so-called "apology", which reads really more like an accusation and a duplicitous deferal of guilt than anything else. But again, I appreciate your genuine effort. It would save all of us a lot of trouble if it could be made effective. Thank you. Kevin Baas | talk 03:34, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Oh, and I was refering to his "apology" on the RfA page. Kevin Baas | talk 03:52, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

I find his apology reasonable. To me it seems like a policy misunderstanding: he thought his Talk page was his private grounds for having fun if he wanted, but in fact putting fake remarks there is not permissible. He seems to get that now. VV 20:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was refering to the one that is now crossed-off. Kevin Baas | talk 14:30, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

George Bush POV

Please stop making POV edits to George W. Bush. It is rather obvious that you support him, but Misplaced Pages has to maintain NPOV. ] 20:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please don't delete posts from your talk page, and how is my post "posturing"? ] 20:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You are calling my edits POV when they're not. In general, I don't feel obliged to leave frivolous charges on my Talk page. VV 20:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are above WP:3RR by my count.--Eloquence*

So are you. VV 21:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Eloquence is not above three reverts per day on the GWB page. Kevin Baas | talk 22:41, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
I counted five. VV 22:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Uno , dous , tres . Kevin Baas | talk 22:47, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
Ah, I see! My mistake. Kevin Baas | talk 22:48, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
In response to VV's first post in this section: See my post on Talk:George W. Bush. Then I want you to look me in the eye (metaphorically) and tell me that your edits to that page are not POV. ] 16:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have responded on that page. VV 22:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Griko

Can you please explain what's the point of moving "Griko" to "Griko language"? Is this part of some regulation? Thanks.

It's just the standard for Misplaced Pages articles on languages. See English language, French language, etc. I don't think it's a great idea myself, but oh well. VV 15:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, but you'd better take care of the redirects to. Etz Haim 15:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The double redirects are the only real "problems", but I've gone ahead and done them all anyway. VV 15:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, you are so cool :) Thanks, and keep in touch! Etz Haim 17:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No-boo

VV:

I recently added an article entitled 'No-boo' to the Misplaced Pages to document the AP's fabrication of the 'boos' during a Bush rally. Your good friend Gamaliel is leading a charge to wipe it out of existance, but I think it is Wikipedic in that it documents a real event, the word 'No-boo' or 'No-boo affair' has become a part of our current language, and that this entry is an important supporting document in the disussion of liberal bias in the media. I would like to solicit your 'keep' vote. Thanks for your consideration: Fish-man 18:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi VV! Just wanted to let you know that if you stay out of edit wars and other trouble, I'll nominate you for the adminship again in a few months. You have very good potential to be an admin. Keep up the good work, and try not to get into trouble or break wiki rules. Marcus2 18:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bush popularity

I don't see many substantive differences between the 2 versions getting reverted back & forth, except in the first sentence. In that sentence, I agree with you that Kerry should go, but agree with the other version that 'significantly' is appropriate.

By Kevin's comments on my talk page, I wonder if the dispute is becoming more about process than substance. Perhaps if you tried incrementally editing the popularity section (in unobjectionable steps) you might have fewer problems with kevin. Just a thought. Wolfman 16:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh, header change rather amusing actually. How do you feel about my edit striking the initial adjective (no generally, or significantly?) That seems to be kevin's only real objection. Thanks for answering. Wolfman 00:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey VV, have you noticed the most recent discussion on the GWB talk page? Talk:George_W._Bush#discussion_on_VV_.2F_KB_edit Kevin Baas | talk 21:22, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
You mean the one in which I took part? Yes, it seems to finally be winding down. VV 23:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was refering to my note that I give you the honors of changing the text to the version that we both, finally, agree upon. (You have my word that I will accept this change.) The other minor disputes are small matters that are independant of this, and I see no reason why we should hold back this progress until we reach agreement on the other, independant matters. Kevin Baas | talk 00:29, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

Anarchism

Thank you for reverting Anarchism. I did not think it was POV either, and was planning on making a big fuss about it. Revert war.. arbitration committee.. all very tiring. --- EDGE

List of neoconservatives

When undoing 66.20.28.21's POV edits, you could just do them at all once rather than making a string of nine tiny changes in the span of eight minutes. I know it's fun to try to maximize your "score", but it bloats the history page and is thus not good for everyone else.

Thanks.

By the way, he's at it again. --dreish~talk 03:07, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to maximize anything; I didn't notice the edits were by one user, and was just removing POV as I found it (and using section edit links). Anyway, if you see him at it again, just revert. VV 06:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If at all possible

Can you please send me the perl/python script that makes the contrib by hour chart? Or does it require Linux/Gnuplot? Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It uses perl and Gnuplot. In fact, I was planning to go ahead and post it here; it's just been a matter of me not getting around to it. ;) I'll do it now. VV 06:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have requested arbitration re PNAC. CK 13:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush

By my count, you reverted Gzornenplatz three times (although that "restore NPOV" could have been a fourth one). I have protected the page, and I ask you to try to come to a consensus/compromise with Gzornenplatz. Of course, it's not very easy to come to a consensus based on five words, but it's better than an edit war... ugen64 00:54, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

PNAC

Sure I'll help. Send me an email so we can discuss this in a more private manner. Toodles. TDC 06:33, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

weak. All nations conscript as justification for conscription?

Really is that the best you can do. It is self serving of nations to want to preserve a priviledged protected status for civilians while considering them fair game to use as military assets. I too thought the atomic bombings were war crimes until I learned that women and children were conscripted to work in the factories. The military thought of them as military assets, how does this not legitimize them as military targets?--Silverback 08:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I don't know if there is a more elegant way to "talk". On my talk page you argued "In any case, Japan's decisions in this regard do not reflect on the legitimacy of killing civilians". This is obviously wrong unless you also admit that it is not legitimate to kill civilians that are in the military through conscription. I can agree with you if you concede that they are also innocent civilians.

"It is the fact that they are fighting and shooting at their enemy that makes them soldiers", hmmm, it must be something more mundane than that, since even soldiers in supply lines or at desks are considered legitimate targets. Perhaps it is the uniform? I wonder if the women and children conscripted in those factories wore uniforms? If so, then perhaps it is the specifics of the insignia?

Perhaps you are too accepting of things they way they are instead of demanding that they make sense.--Silverback 09:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)