User talk:B.Wind - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B.Wind (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 14 December 2005 (→Incivility on a AfD page?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:42, 14 December 2005 by B.Wind (talk | contribs) (→Incivility on a AfD page?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Misplaced Pages is not pages.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Florida State Route 869

Is there a reason you copied the text of Florida State Road 869 here? I have replaced it with a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

To coin a phrase, SPUI -- interesting. By the way, did you replace the picture that disappeared from the Florida State Roads page? If you don't intend to do so, the template should be deleted. B.Wind 19:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a current problem with display of some images - if it's not fixed soon I'll work around it. --SPUI (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

Thanks for the classification of the WV articles! It saved me a lot of time! (since I would have had to do it, and I'm swamped right now) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help out, but there is quite a bit of work ahead of you there... Several of your state route pages have ONLY the templates - no information about the roads themselves. B.Wind 08:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Penthouse models

They all came up in one hit because I found them all in one hit, splintered off the List of Penthouse Pets, where all the information that can be merged already is located. I apologise if the mass of nominations worries or confuses you. Saberwyn 09:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No confusion here -- between the 1970 Penthouse models and the Hong Kong students, this morning's collection of AfDs resembled a theme package. Thank goodness for Mr. Cut and Ms. Paste for easy repetitive voting! B.Wind 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One dollar Federal Reserve Note

I noticed the deletion debate here has fizzled somewhat, but I made some changes to the articles that may further illustrate the points I had been trying to make. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Paul 23:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Gladly! As a child, I collected coins and paper currency. I'll follow up both here and on your user page. B.Wind 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here goes....

Hi Paul, I see what you're doing with U.S. one dollar bill. Your additions enhance the article, but I suspect that you'll (metaphorically) paint yourself in a corner with the different type of notes (USN, FRN, SC,...) here... and, most likely, a similar repetition with each of the other denominations. May I suggest the following (I think I mentioned it in the AfD discussion, but my short term memory isn't the greatest, either):

Set up a section entitled U.S. currency types (or more appropriate name). In it put the description of the red seal USN, blue seal (or brown seal) SC, Hawaii notes, yellow seal GC, etc. with a general description of the various types (after all, do we need detailed repetition between the $1 US Note and the $5 US Note?) and representative pictures of various denominations.

This will cut down on the duplications, and - more importantly - "free up" U.S. one dollar bill (and others) for sections dealing with the evolution of the design over the years. Ditto the other denominations. It will be more challenging for you, but in the long run the results will be far more rewarding for you and more interesting for the so-called "average" reader (I'm partial to the large notes that were circulated prior to 1920 myself).

I hope this helps. Good luck! I'll stop by from time to time and check (I'm in the middle of the Florida State Roads project myself - thank goodness I can write about my local streets!). B.Wind 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

FRNs

Your idea might be the best of all, as much as I liked my own idea it is a) cumbersome, I admit and b) not going to be popular, ever. I might give that a try when I get back into heavy editing (tomorrow or the day after - I seriously have no life and edit all day, but I'm taking a day off.) Anyway, I'm not sure what the best title would be...Issues of United States paper currency might be the best, to describe USN, FRN, FRBN, etc. Thanks for the idea and keep in touch. Paul 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about popularity, Paul - just write the best article you can think of. If it's worthwhile, people will like it. B.Wind 04:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Incivility on a AfD page?

At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/People reported to be born in the Kaaba you said that I had personally attacked Striver. I thought I'd succeeded in keeping my temper. Could you explain wherein I failed? Zora 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, you were fine, Zora - compared to some of the name callers, you were downright civil (and if this were a different forum I'd be blocking or suspending some of the name callers for the ad hominem attacks). On the other hand, they are responding to something that they viewed as an attack (and, no, I don't wish to step into something that has clearly been going on for awhile). I phrased my objection so that I can both remain neutral in this religious food fight and also ensure that I could be percieved as neutral. On the other hand, it does seem that when a valid objection is being made, there appears to be no conciliation or compromise with you (I based this on the talk or AfD on at least ~~two~~ three articles, if I remember correctly... and one thing that I've learned the hard way over the years is that when you see someone with a flaming torch headed in your direction, you don't douse him/her with gasoline/petrol).

And reading the articles in question gives me the impression that they're being inflamed. They're provoking you, of course, but I had to say something at this point before it goes far beyond edit wars.

Do I think that you engaged in a personal attack with/in the articles in question? Not really, but at the same time, you are engaging in a religious "battle" spanning centuries (not unlike some of the gems over which the various denominations of Christianity have battled over the years). After all (if the accusation is true), you don't just say that you're going to present both sides of the controversy and then misstate or misrepresent the position of the other side, and I get the impression that more than one person thought that this happened. B.Wind 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I'm a Sunni? I'm a non-Muslim, a Buddhist. My horse in this race is the academic version of events (which dismisses the story as a myth). If you see anger and contempt leaking out (and I admit that they are there -- I have a LONG history with Striver) it's of the evolutionary-biologist-arguing-with-creation-scientist order.

I don't see this story as essential to Shi'a Islam (for an academically solid, thoughtful book by a Shi'a, see Reza Aslan's No God But God) and that's why Striver's position just baffles me. I don't understand preferring myth to what is scientifically or historically demonstrable. I don't understand religion that's based on believing contrafactuals. As a Buddhist, all I have to believe is that there was a guy named Buddha and he said stuff, which I find useful <g>.

Nevertheless, I'm trying to present the Shi'a position fairly. I tend to go head on with Striver when he insists on writing the other positions as well -- in this case, insisting that Sunni believe the birth-in-Kaaba story. I'm not sure that this is demonstrated, though it's possible I could be proved wrong. Zora 21:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no conclusions as to your religious affiliation, nor do I wish to entangle myself in such with anybody. As for your other points, I'll simply mention here what I mentioned on Striver's talk page: you two should get together and try to write ONE article... and document the stuffing out of everything you assert. There's nothing wrong with "agreeing to disagree": other religions and denominations have been doing it for centuries. My suggestion is to look for commonality first and then the both of you to acknowledge each other's position whenever (and wherever) there is an irreconcilable difference. The last thing we want is to draw a Misplaced Pages reader into a raging battle. B.Wind 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a thought from my 20 years of teaching experience and other observations -- strong emotions preclude analytic thought. That's why people who reduce stress do better on exams than those who cram up until exam time. I sense a similarity in the science-vs.-religion debates going on: true scientific analysis precludes faith (an emotion), and anything based on emotion tends to precludes scientific analysis. B.Wind 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)