Just curious as to the motive behind your deletion of the Maidenform stuff. This seems to me to be relevant (I wrote it and restored it). Care to comment? Leonard G. 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
See article talk, please do not further revert until properly discussed. I will view your comments tomorrow, going offline now - Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I changed the Schoolies article from a redirect to Schoolies Week to a disambiguation page, linking to Skoolies, the individuals who convert school busses to RVs (and the busses themselves).
I fully agree with your page move to Socialist Alliance (England). I had thought of doing the same myself, but put it off as there are so many links. As you have moved the article, would you help in fixing these links? Warofdreams talk 04:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman
I thought you might like appreciate a quick Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman; you've contributed there back in November and you might have seen that a moderation was attempted on some disputed edits made by User:Jacrosse. He agreed to the moderation but then did not take part in it. It agreed to delete some unsupported and referenced claims (basically, that Shachtman's current, far from fragementing and collapeing into cold-war social democarcym actually effected a Leninist takeover, both of US social democracy and then of US neo-conseratism. At this point Jacrosse is engaging in obvious acts of vandalism without even beginning to comment on the Talk pages. Perhaps Jacrosse will sit down to Talk, however it seems unlikely. Arbitration may be on the cards. If you can spare a little time over the next week or two, I would appreciate it if you could pop into Talk:French Turn or Talk:Max Shachtman. Your contribution has been very valuable and, of course, the danger is that all parties in this dispute get tangled up and lose our way towards improving the entries. Thanks for the help you've already given -- and sorry to see you're getting blocked at the University. -- Duncan 17:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
- This is one of several sources that list Althusser's cause of death as cardiovascular: [1]
- The statement of his death is about half-way down the page.
- If you find a discrepancy, please let me know.
- Regards,
- Michael David 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mgekelly,
- We need to start with a standard dictionary definition of the word ‘disease’: (1) “a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning.” [2]; And:
- (2) “Abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort or dysfunction.” [3]. The key here is ‘dysfunction’.
- Diseases can be of a long-term duration or near-immediate onset (dysfunction ((malfunction)) of the organ).
- In the case of the heart (unless you have a penetrating injury) any malfunction of the heart is considered under the diagnosis of ‘cardiovascular disease’ whether it results in immediate death or not.
- In short the term ‘heart attack’ is the layman’s term for ‘cardiovascular disease.’
- Althusser may or may not have had earlier symptoms of cardiac problems, but his death was caused by the malfunction of a diseased organ.
- I hope this has made sense and that it helps.
- Be healthy,
- Michael David 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Mgekelly,
What do you believe was Louis Althusser’s cause of death? And, what general category would you place it in?
- Michael David 11:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Myocardial infarction (heart attack) is already covered in the ‘Forms’ section of the ‘ Cardiovascular disease’ Article. I’m not sure what more you would want to see added there.
- Michael David 12:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mgekelly,
- Look closely at the term: Cardio (the heart) & Vascular (the vessels). All of the conditions listed in the ‘Cardiovascular Disease’ Article are forms of it. ‘Coronary Heart Disease’ (also known as ‘Coronary Artery Disease’) (artery as in vessel - as in vascular) is a form of cardiovascular disease.
- Once more: “Cardiovascular Disease” is the primary (catch-all) diagnostic category for all dysfunctional conditions of the cardiovascular system.
- I don’t know how to further help you to understand it.
- Michael David 13:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mgekelly,
- I left the specific subject of Louis Althusser a while back.
- I believe I finally understand where the seeming confusion lies. A heart attack is a consequence, not a form of cardiovascular disease. Technically, yes, this is so.
- Duty calls, and I need to be away from the computer for a while. I should be back sometime late afternoon. I am also interested in your interest in Louis Althusser.
- Be healthy,
- Michael David 14:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mgekelly,
- I apologize. I reviewed our conversation and found that I was seeing with blinders on. I have been so fucused on categorization, what falls under what diagnosis, that I had been completely missing the substance of your argument. As I said above, yes, a 'heart attack' is a consequence of cardiovascular disease not a form of it.
- Thank you for your you patience.
- Be healthy,
- Michael David 19:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll pretend I'm normal :) Conscious 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. Please refer to the requests for citations here. More detail is available on the talk page. Thanks for taking the time. Regards, El_C 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
but quoting Marx like this is not informative about Marxism-Leninism in particular. It is really just a very ugly edit, and I think has a rather clear anti-Marxist polemical intent, which means it's hardly NPOV. since when is bringing a direct citation from one of Marx' most well-known and clear books an act of biasedness??? Is Marx' quotation anti-Marxist? One shouldn't try to conceal communisms aims, for The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow [sometimes translated: violent overthrow] of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. [4] -- Constanz - Talk 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"I haven't heard back on this, so I'm doing a revert. Please do not interpret this as unwillingness on my part to engage in discussion on this issue!" Well you are now, and it's a very angry face. You are an immigrant and I created this template (I'm Australian but my ancestery is not). I included the flag in the first place because at the time templtes sgnifying residency in other countries did include national flags (I don't know whether they still do). So why is it accepted when sigifying residency in most other countries but not Australia (US/US certricism). Then again, Australia is not "most nations," Australia is a different place (multicultural, south of the Equator, etc). Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(
Hey, I apologize about the Egdge hippies → Straight edge merger. I was just on my way to bed when I came across that article, and my first instinct was to speedy it but instead, for some odd reason, decided to propose a merger. Afterward, I looked into the topic a bit more, and it only returns something like 30 hits on Google, so I do definitely think it falls under WP:CSD. I totally agree that this kind of article should not be encouraged, and so I'll go vote to delete now. Thanks for your message, and again I apologize for the inconvenience. AmiDaniel ( Talk) 17:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what "frivolous" means. Furthermore: "I'd like to point out that Myrtone has again added a template to the wrong date in TFD even after these warnings" I had no way of knowing that it is the wrong date. I may have to take this up at the village pump, because of how offended I am, next time any wikipedian continues to herras me (repeatedly), I will contact an adim(ess) about getting them block and possible their ISP about having their internet and email disconnected. Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(
Not everyone (automatically or not) *knows* today's date, it is possible to forget, you know. Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 09:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
PS You still havn't told me what 'frivolous' means, it is a new word to me, must be a sophisticated one.
I believe you misunderstand the Hardcores article in Wikipedia. This website is not a vanity site and represents the youth of Newcastle in Australia. I propose you stop calling for deletion of this article, on behalf of the teenagers of Newcastle.
That wasn't me. I suggest you ban the IP's instead?
Welcome, Mgekelly, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.
I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, we will keep you updated about the results. Because you are a new member, you are not able to vote in these elections, but you will be more than welcome to take part in the elections in June.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial written by one of our members. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work! Fe e zo (Talk) 13:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Completely unwarranted to who? I'm sorry if you're reading negative subtexts here, but I keep reverting to the original paragraph because I have just as much a problem with your modification as you do with the previous text. To me, "incomprehensible as sung" is bad diction, both in my mind's eye and when I recite it out loud. And, if you're at all familiar with Jacob Bannon and his vocal style, it is extremely difficult to decipher what he's saying because he pretty much hides his lyrics underneath shrieks and screams, and you while can glean much emotional content from that, sometimes people want to know what his message is, and with the assistance of a lyrics sheet, people can interpret (or understand, as you put it) what he's saying. Maybe we have different definitions of what interpret means, but there's multiple meanings, so I don't feel as if I'm using the word wrong here. People would 'understand' it differently as well, just as much as they would 'interpret' it differently, our brains aren't all wired to draw the same conclusions.
Thanks for submitting your entry to WP:AIV. I was just wondering if next time you could use the {{ vandal}} template, as it saves administrators a bit of trouble and just looks purdier. Thanks! :D _-M o P-_ 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
See here and here and also here cheers, Roydosan 11:55 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed User:Roydosan already linked you in. I noticed you jumping in on the whole LMS issue. Do you want to be part of the mediation? jbolden1517 Talk 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to participate if you, as mediator, would like me to. mg e kelly 03:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your advice on Talk:Byzantine Empire Go to 'A Proposal'. I think I'm trying to adhere to NPOV by doing this but could do with an impartial voice. Cheers!! Roydosan 11:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You have reverted my edit to Polygamy. Do you have a better solution? — xyzzy n 15:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"The reason I have just added this, Myrtone, is that I only just realised that frivolous deletion nominations count as vandalism in Wikipedia policy." Does this even apply with placing such a vote. It surprises me that such dletion nominations are considered vandalism, becuase (my expirience) in the real world, in many socientis, my views on this would be perfectly normal so why am I so alon e on wikipedia. Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(
Why the reverts on massage aditions? Appeared accurate Clappingsimon 14:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
My objection to Homer Simpson's hair was that: telling someone his hair color: is completely un unimportant. The only noticable hair color of any of the simpson characters is Marge. Not only that, but their hair color is very clear as there is a picture supplied with it, so you dont need to bo told, it can be seen in the picture!!
Yours sincerely,
Goonmaster 16:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Trivia is the name of the category used in Patrick Duffy and Kathie Lee Gifford when referring to South Park. Might I suggest that is appropos for David Blaine as well?
Thefool 06:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- What a guy! Thefool 07:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
|
|
Curps has reverted your change of images on Template:User_not_censored. I think the image should be changed, and I'm not sure what to do about this. Bsmntbombdood 03:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this controversial? Why cite requests? -- Stbalbach 16:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be referenced. I want to know where this information comes from. If I thought it were false, I would have deleted it. mg e kelly 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It seens like you get annoyed when someone adds comments that oppose the LTTE terrorist group. As I Supermod hail from Sri Lanka, I have a right to edit the LTTE article as relevant. Please do not try to be biased to a terrorist organization.
Looking at your edit history, you take privilege in deleting and adding whatever you may desire, but if another person does it, it is agaisnt Wiki standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermod ( talk • contribs)
- Thankfully this is not how Wikipedia works. I think you need to familiarise yourself with our policies instead of making up your own on an a priori basis. mg e kelly 05:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It was for this edit however looking at it I see the warning was terribly misplaced and I apologise and I have removed it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention and again I apologise - Gl e n T C (Stollery) 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the template in episteme-article. You are completely right. N3MO
Hey there. I notice you edited my article on the Unite Australia Party, changing the line about the UAP "flourished" in the late 1980s to the UAP "existed" in the late 1980s and gave the reason as changing the line to NPOV. I used the word flourished to mean "To be in a period of greatest influence" (as can be found at [5]), which it was, rather than as any plan to push my personal point of view on some political party I barely remember. Cheers, -- Roisterer 14:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, I appreciate this. My understanding from the article was that the late 1980s wasn't the period of flourishing of this party so much as the only time it existed. I do feel it's more NPOV with my wording too. Cheers, mg e kelly 15:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Unreferenced section tag on University of Notre Dame
Please be specific on the Talk:University of Notre Dame page to what you feel needs to be referenced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KelleyCook ( talk • contribs)
Re: clear failures of WP:MUSIC
There's always {{ db-band}} and {{ prod|reason}} to handle those, but I'm not going to argue over it, since the redirect target is quite logical. — May. 26, '06 [07:23] < freak| talk>
I'm not sure how/where to send a reply message to a user on Wikipedia but here goes...
I made the changes to the Rebecca Cartwright bio page because it doesn't seem to sound right to address her as "Hewitt" because it could be confused with Lleyton Hewitt. I don't know what the big deal is with 'nee' but I'll leave it alone anyway. 202.161.27.152 09:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement and your links for newcomers. I agree the Polygamy article is a mess. Maybe you'll be the one to get it back on track! J'ai de la foi que vous pouvez le faire. Merci beaucoup. (I saw you speak french on your user page). Have a great day. Wikible 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Good'ay, Mgekelly, I'm writing because it is important that Petrejo's edits be prevented from reaching beyond the already known spheres of his/her misunderstanding, for which Petrejo wishes to establish as what may be seen in such an arcane figure as Nietzsche's. Recently, I noticed a horrendous and truly distorted view of Nietzsche's perspective on Master-Slave Morality placed there by Petrejo, which I reverted. Essentially, what I wish to bring to your attention is the entirety of Petrejo's "contributions" and not just those to Friedrich Nietzsche. I only do so since these matters are difficult for myself during this time, and I hope things go well for yourself. — ignis scri pta 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what of WP:TROLL? I suppose a little more digging through policy would be a good idea. This guy's original research sickens me. And I doubt this guy even has an undergraduate degree, but that is a different issue. Non-vandal 02:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link&emdash;it is clear that Petrejo is a troll. The problem is that the guidelines in policy for dealing with trolls are pretty much what we are doing. We can't block him, because he's "only" a troll, not a vandal. *Sigh*
mg
e
kelly 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- This guy'll be gone before long – his useless and laughable accusations about "obsequious[-ness]" are trollish and so is all of his Hegel-mania. I'll keep an eye out for more trolling he will have done by the time I revert it. Non-vandal 03:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Find something else to do with your time [6]. I would ask that you write a sentence justifying your thinking, but I assume that would be beyond your capacities. -- JJay 13:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you're quite right there is nothing funny about my addition of the character Å to your comment in that debate. I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks it is. I didn't do it on purpose. I must have clicked at that point in the edit window at some point while composing my comment and accidentally hit that keystroke. I apologise unreservedly, but I think accusing meof vandalism is a bit rich. Moreover, given that the time it take to add that character is a matter of microseconds, there's not much else I could have done with it.
mg
e
kelly 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Sorry for my reaction then. Take care. -- JJay 14:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
How is it false to state he was the ruler of the PRC - terms such as "Mao's government" are used in the article. Can you leave your Marxist personal beliefs at the door? 58.169.137.247 10:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's false to describe Mao as ruler of China simpliciter. As I understand it, power in China was always more plural than that. Look at the Cultural Revolution. The main target of the revolution were enemies of Mao's who retained enough power throughout to be able to take power when he died. Moreover, even if you're not going to allow that, you have to allow that there was a significant period after the Great Leap Forward, when Mao's power in China was more at figurehead level, with others making the real decisions.
- Could you please refrain from making ad hominem arguments? Not only is it fallacious, it's also un civil, not to mention against wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. mg e kelly 11:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I moved the article when I was really tired, and at the time thought it should use the more common name of the character; which infact is actually something I've tried to avoid in the past. I should have put a redirect on the new page, but like I said I was a bit tired at the time. I know I should have discussed it at the time, but in all honesty I didn't even think anybody would notice or care if I did it - it looked to me as though the Neighbours articles get very little attention anyway. Anyway, I'm sorry for doing it. -- JD talk email 10:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like you're doing really good work and you haven't received any awards yet, so I awarded you a barnstar on your user page. Thanks for your contributions! (I wasn't sure how to find my way through all the formatting, so place it in a different location if you want.) -- Grace 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just sticking this here per policy - I've formatted it to my liking on my userpage. mg e kelly 07:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| I hereby award you this barnstar for your work on Michel Foucault as well as your tireless small edits, vast in number, that make Wikipedia a better place. Now go work on your thesis! Grace 02:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
Hello Mgekelly. I come here to make a rather important request, although I'm sure it will be grudgingly accepted if at all. Namely, Petrejo's contributions to the Nietzsche talk page have lately drowned what I find to be worth-while discussion. If you can, in any way, add your thoughts there, I would greatly appreciate it. Though if you are unable, I perfectly understand. Happy editing and I hope to see you there. Non-vandal 10:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I went an intervened in the thing I saw you had edited last. If you want me to do something else, please specify! mg e kelly 10:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- That was wicked fast! Thank you very much. I still think we're going to have problems of this sort as long as Petrejo is around and there's no avoiding this shrewdly absurd character... Anyway, the points I responded to in "Protected" are extremely troubling for all they represent is this guy's aim to make Nietzsche appear according to his terms... at all costs. I'm not sure how to handle this but it obviously isn't the point of a talk page for the article let alone an encyclopedia. I've made the one response I'm capable of making to it (and to the one under "(Anti-)Wagnerite"). Perhaps we should ignore him entirely? He hasn't done much that would be considered "contributing" but I'm digressing here. Any thoughts on this one? I'm really at a loss. Non-vandal 10:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think the only thing to do according to my reading of policy is to take it to arbitration. That should result in conditions which action can be taken against him for breaking. I'm not really sure if he's stupid or what exactly. I don't think English is his first language in any case. mg e kelly 12:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is truly terrible to have to go to this length. I doubt, even if Petrejo had some linguistic problem, that, given all of the guy's consistency in not addressing the issues directly, he isn't bent on spewing his ideologies at the talk page (just take a look at his "summary" of Wagner and Nietzsche's friendship, not a single source for it, and he goes so far as to say I have a "hero-worshipping POV"... typical of his trolling tactics). Despite my view on that, he's nevertheless never given heed to rules everyone must operate by. And by this time it seems his behavior has disaffected nearly everyone from the page so that no one participates in discussion – quite ridiculous. Why does everyone avoid such a serious problem? It shouldn't take much time, and I would think the ArbCom would see this as a waste of their own time. Well... time to get this cat out of the bag I guess. Non-vandal 06:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all your kind help, but I've decided to leave Wikipedia. I might see you later. It won't be any time soon. Good bye.
Non-vandal 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- All's well. I'm back for now, I suppose. Non-vandal 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems, although I am quite new here and I don't plan on staying, "Petrejo" has left you a disturbing answer to you at the Friedrich Nietzsche talk page. He's obviously, inasmuch as I have seen of this conversation, gone too far with his wily antics, but I wish you the best of luck with all that. Getting other people to comment on Petrejo and reporting him (is it possible?) would probably be a good idea. Anyway, good luck, he seems to have wasted a lot of people's time already. Just passing by 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Per my comment on Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche and this page, there is nothing we can 'report' him for. Trolling is not actually banned on Wikipedia. However, if he persistently adds the same material we can have (and have had) him blocked for violating WP:3RR, and we can also take the case to Arbcom, which is what I advise someone to do. I do not have time to do that right now, sadly. mg e kelly 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a request to User:Jossi but he has yet to give any answer; I am much too unfamiliar with the inner workings of Wikipedia to be of any assistance even though I would like to see justice exercised where it is needed. Just passing by 05:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, — Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I made an edit to the Toadfish Rebecchi article a couple of days ago - it would have appeared as an anonymous IP as I wasn't logged in. You reverted it without explanation, though none of my edits were remotely controversial. Any particular reason?-- Victim Of Fate 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was only trying to co-operate. Please tell me how can I include points in the wikipedia articles.-- Nepal avish 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC) I moved this message from your user page to your talk page. I think this user is new and doesn't understand everything yet. Hope you don't mind. -- Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You added a needs clean up tag to the Schutzhund page. I do most of the work on that page and would be happy to improve it, but the tag alone is no help. Many other Wikipedian dog lovers have contributed to the page over its lifetime and it has been fairly stable for months. If it is in desperate need of cleanup, no one else has noted the need. If you have any specific, concrete suggestions, please post them on the Discussion page. If not, I hope you don't mind if I remove the tag in a few days. Dsurber 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
I thank you for your feedback on my contribution to the Nietzsche page, and acknowledge that I added it without citation and without the amount of research I would have preferred. However, the paragraph as it stood was like this: "Some have diagnosed a form of brain cancer. Others suggest that Nietzsche experienced a mystical awakening, similar to the mast-state studied by Meher Baba.[1] While most commentators regard Nietzsche's breakdown as unrelated to his philosophy, some, including Georges Bataille and René Girard, argue for considering his breakdown as a symptom of a psychological maladjustment brought on by his philosophy". This paragraph simply shows little understanding of modern psychology. First of all, the information about the "mast" state makes up nice trivia, but it's a totally non- scientific theory. In a scientific context, which an encyclopedia should try to embrace, it simply borders on the ridiculous. Now for the claim that his breakdown was unrelated to his philosophy. His philosophy was apparently very intertwined with his own life, and psychological theory simply predicts that what one goes round thinking plays an important role in breakdowns. Citing Georges Bataille and René Girard as sources is beyond the point, as they are literary critics, philosophers etc. and not expert psychologists. If the - uncited - sources that "regard Nietzsche's breakdown as unrelated to his philosophy" too aren't experts in the field of psychology, the paragraph as it stands is more or less worthless. Philosophers sometimes claim to be experts on subjects that they don't have any other knowledge of than non-empirical speculation. I felt that this looked like an example of that, and tried to bring some common sense into the paragraph - and yes, I have read Nietzsche. I thought that the fact that his philosophy, and life, showed "an obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions", to cite the article on megalomania, was undisputed. Still, I'm sorry for entering the uncited comment; the rest of the paragraph being bad is no excuse for adding more poor material, and I'm happy you pointed this out. I may research the subject and get back to it. Again, thanks for your feedback. Narssarssuaq 08:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And in something completely unrelated, I want to congratulate you for your excellent articles Nietzsche, showing a levelheadedness and knowledge concerning Fritz that is sorely lacking around Wikipedia and the world we use as a reference for it. -- Marinus 05:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not following your edit. Could you elaborate a bit more? Thanks. Have a great weekend. Rsm99833 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You put a "fact" template tag on a (not very well written) sentence in the Biology and sexual orientation article. The sentence was "So settling the question of whether or not non-heterosexual orientations are adaptive, anti-adaptive, or neutral, does not necessarily settle the question of whether or not they have genetic determinants, and vice versa." I'm wondering if this is the statement you think needs citing, or something earlier in the paragraph? The sentence itself seems clearly self-evident to me, so much so that finding a scientific paper that explaicitly states that the two things are unrelated will be exceptionally difficult. The sentence (and maybe the whole paragraph) needs re-writing, but I don't want to make the effort until I've understood your objection. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're probably right. Although there is a clear need for more referencing in that article. mg e kelly 03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for nice clean up of Bogan. Myself and others have done similar deletions and cleanups on that page, but they are usually soon reverted. Asa01 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, let me know if I can help. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You are perfectly right: from the perspective of Judaism, one's father's religion is irrelevant to the question of whether one is a Jew or not. However, if what we are trying to do is not to put Marx into a little box, but rather describe his background, then his father's religion(s) may merit mention. In my opinion, it might be best not to put it in the introductory paragraph, but, rather, in the treatment of Zur Judenfrage. In Marx's (largely Christian!) environment, his father's religion of origin is as likely to have caused him to be seen as "of the Jewish race" as his mother's ancestors' religion was, and this may be relevant to the question of why Marx put matters fairly sharply in one of his early treatises. Of course, it may be that too much weight is being given to this matter. Marx's relationship with his father was quite complicated, and this has to be mentioned in a biography, but the fact that his father had once been (nominally?) Jewish may have been a relatively small complicating factor. Some chaps in wikipedia seem to have become monomanic in their tagging of individuals by ancestry (or certain kinds of ancestry). It is quite easy to be put off by all that - but perhaps one can fight it only so much without becoming a little of a monomaniac oneself, at least for a few days. Bellbird 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is that this issue is not Marx-specific. You should be questioning either the existence of the category concerned, or on such categories generally, or on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines in respect of categorisation. Personally, though – ça ne me fait rien. mg e kelly 14:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You have reverted my contribution to the above article without any discussion. So I have to assume that there was something grossly wrong with my entry. Naturally, as a long term (over 2.5 years) and avid contributor (Sikhi section) of this site, I would appreciate more details of why you have reverted my contributions to the above article, especially without any discussion. A bland pointer to various tags is of little help. It would help if you give a little more details and examples so that changes can be made. A frank and open approach would be appreciated. I don't have any emotional axe to grind but I feel that this point is a valid one to make. What do religions have to say about this right? I have made contributions to many other rights – like women rights, rights of other to worship, right to wear turban, etc. Aren't the view of others important to this site? or do you wish to just promote "your" perceived view only. I believe that by adding my contribution, we achieve a better global view of what various cultures have to say about this issue and do not restrict it to a "western" view only – I could say that you have made the article biased to a POV.
OR: I do not believe that this is Original research as various quotations from a text almost 500 years old are given to support the views. All these facts can be found on the internet. What is original in this section – please elaborate so that I can show you that it has existed for 100's of years. It may be "new" to you but its not new to the world and so it is not OR.
NPOV: The article is factual and is not a personal POV. You can only violate this rule if you state a personal POV. What I have stated, I believe are the facts in a religious documents many 100's of years old – I am only highlighting a POV of this existing text – I have not added my POV. So where does the POV issue come in. Please enlighten.
NOT: How is anything here a violation of these rules. Which section has been violated? Please give details.
I believe that you have been very unfair and are taking a very "narrow" view of the issues and are "stuck" in your predetermined attitudes to this subject matter. I would appreciate a honest and detailed discussion of the reason for your action.
Further, aren't the views of Sikhism (fifth biggest organised religion) important to articles on this site. Or are you only interested in the narrow view of the west and a view-point that suits you in the west? I hope this action is not based on a prejudice against other cultures and their views? If it is not, then I expect a detailed reply to my query.
I have been contributing to various wikis for several years (and am an administrator at one) and have authored 1000's of articles - the first on Wikipedia on 11 March 2004, a little longer than you have and I have OR and NPOV marked as links on my user page as I thought I would study them regularly. You help and explanation would be much appreciated. Many thanks. -- Hari Singh 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- The very first sentence of your complaint is inaccurate. I left a message on your talk page to which most of your message here is a response. That is not 'no discussion'. Frankly, I do not at present have the time to get into a detailed dispute with you on this matter. Maybe later. Cheers, mg e kelly 01:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- The talk page on the Animal rights has the article marked as:
- This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. -Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
- And so I would expect users to discuss changes before making them and not make the change with a short note to the author – that’s not a discussion, is it? Further, I believe that one needs to accept that most people write in "good faith" and so deserve some credit for the work that they do and hence a discussion would be in order.
- I appreciate that you may be very busy, but I am genuinely interested to know why you found the section unacceptable and would welcome some feedback as this could possibly improve my standard of input to the various wikis. If you can't do it now, later would be fine. I have also put the message on the article talk page to see if I get feedback there. Many thanks for your time. -- Hari Singh 02:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:BOLD, mate. The controversy around animal rights has nothing to do with religion. What you added was esoteric rather than controversial. It read like propaganda for Sikhism. It's true, as you say above, that Sikhism is one of the five largest organised religions. However, it's way smaller than the four larger ones, closer in size to the sixth largest, Judaism. What you said in the edit I reverted was that Sikhism is one of the five major (not largest) organised religions, which is a POV statement that arbitrarily creates a group of five big religions. Adding this big thing on Sikhism in an article which otherwise doesn't mention religion skews the crap out of it. I could go on for hours I suspect with what was wrong with your edit. mg e kelly 03:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
Just as a matter of curiosity, on September 25 you made an edit to the straight edge page. You reverted:
"is a commitment, closely associated with hardcore punk music, to abstinence from tobacco, alcohol, and any recreational drug use, as well as promiscuous sexual behavior."
to:
"is a commitment, closely associated with hardcore punk music, to abstinence from tobacco, alcohol, and any recreational drug use. Some straight edgers also abstain from promiscuous sexual behavior"
Anyway, I changed it back as the previous change was a valid one and added a few links at the bottom to substantiate the change.
I was just wishing to point out that the change you made was incorrect. The change you made refers to the group "Poison Free", not straight edge. As the poison free group is a knock-off of striaght edge and there isn't enough information on to start a new article, I added a section called poision free to the page and I hope you will acknowledge this change as a valid one and won't change it back.
Soldier In Christ 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What is your reference? I am straight edge, have been for years, have known many straight edge people, and have never, ever met a straight-edger who refrains from promiscuous sex. I have never heard the phrase 'poison-free' applied to a movement before (though I have seen it on t-shirts). mg e kelly 03:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
STRAIGHT EDGE LIFESTYLE (See Straight Edge link on left and scroll down to IVE GOT THE STRAIGHT EDGE - Quote: "People over time finding themselves increasingly deisenchanted with social ills, began to adopt the Striaght Edge doctrine as a blueprint to better first themselves, and then the world in which they lived. While the original definition of Straight Edge only included the rejection of mind altering substances and promiscous sex, modern interpreters have suggested also vegitarianism, veganism...")
Dictionary.comstraight-edge (streyt-ej)
–adjective
advocating abstinence from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, and sex and sometimes advocating vegetarianism.
Anyway, Straight Edge is not about staying a virgin forever, but to refrain from promiscous sex.
Have I satisfied your curiosity on the 'sxe and sex' issue? Anyway, the main place online i know of that talks about poision free as a seperate group than straight edge is Straight Edge Basics, but I know many people around my school who choose to call themselves poision free rather than straight edge because they can't go without sex.
Anyway, I reverted it back to where I had it as I think I have given substantial proof behind my viewpoint.
Soldier In Christ 16:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You deleted my addition to the Surry Hills article about the fact that a significant portion of Sydney's gay community lives there. Can you explain why? The statement was not incorrect. 59.167.10.187 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the work, but why did you do a cut and paste rather than a conventional move? Andjam 11:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Andjam. I did the cut-and-paste because there were already significant disambig elements to the current article which I wanted to retain at Accord and because the talk page of Accord was about disambig stuff not about The Accord. Regards, mg e kelly 12:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the reference from Capote's obit in New York Times:
- After his mother's divorce from Mr. Persons and her marriage to Joe Capote, she brought her son to live with them in New York. He was sent to several private schools, including Trinity School and St. John's Academy in New York, but he disliked schools and did poorly in his courses, including English, although he had taught himself to read and write when he was 5 years old. Having been told by many teachers that the precocious child was probably mentally backward, the Capotes sent him to a psychiatrist who, Truman Capote said triumphantly some years later, "naturally classified me as a genius."
In the Gerald Clarke biography, a paragraph describes how Capote was usually seen at age five carrying around his dictionary and notepad. Conversations with Truman Capote has a passage telling how Capote taught himself to read (in a town with no library) by collecting old farm magazines and each day at six pm meeting the bus which dropped off the two newspapers from Mobile and Montgomery. Hadley Bond was a gifted child in Australia who taught himself to read by the age of one-and-a-half, had a library at age two and taught himself math at age three. There are hundreds of accounts of people who taught themselves to read, by comparing street signs or Biblical passages to speech, and many mentions of Lincoln teaching himself. The novelist Nicholas Delbanco taught himself to read at age six by studying a book about boats during a transatlantic crossing. Pepso 16:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I still refuse to believe this for a prior reasons, but whatever regarding the Capote edit. Thanks for getting a reference in any case – you're a credit to the encyclopedia. mg e kelly 01:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Australian English word use
Your recent edit to Australian English word use ( diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ssxcrest.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that you did the correct thing by removing all the Greater Manchester references in education, art, etc. Maybe you could do the same thing for sport. Neither of the two Old Trafford stadia is in Manchester. Indeed, Manchester United haven't played in Manchester (except for during the immediate post-war period)for over 80 years. Cymruisrael 07:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hey. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I may do that if I have time. But I'm a bit baffled why you left me this message rather than doing this job y'self. Cheers,
mg
e
kelly 10:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I did do it, but it got immediately reverted - no doubt by a Manchester United supporter :-) Cymruisrael 11:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter (November '06 edition) can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. — Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello, 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Aloha. On or around October 25, you added multiple cite requests to Spiritual use of cannabis, concerning a number of non-controversial, mundane historical representations of cannabis use in Islamic culture. While I agree that sourcing is necessary, I'm curious if you feel the information is inaccurate in some way. — Viriditas | Talk 07:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't know how one is supposed to judge these mundane and non-controversial – better to cleave to WP:CITE, IMO. mg e kelly 22:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
|
|
I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandizi ŋ! -- Randfan please talk talk to me! |
 |
- Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! : ) — Rand fan ! !
Cheers! : ) — Rand fan ! ! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
If you survey the lyrics of Dan Bejar from the indie rock band Destroyer and Kevin Barnes from Of Montreal you will see much Nietzschean influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.22.208 ( talk • contribs)
Hi Mgekelly I noticed your stirling contribution to the Michel Foucault article and thought you might like to know that their is a Michel Foucault reading group over on Wikiverstiy. We are reading The Archaeology of Knowledge this month. Hope you can drop by and help use out. There is also a Department dedicated to the study of Nietzsche that needs a lot of help. Hope to hear from you soon Mystictim 21:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
|
The article
Braveheart, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring
cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's
quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the
article's talk page. |
Please do not subst redirect templates. Doing so makes it difficult to implement site-wide changes to styling of such links (as is currently happening). See Template talk:Dablink for the discussion. Mike Dillon 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)