User talk:Batmanand/Archive 2

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

This page contains what was added to my talk page in January and February 2006 Batmanand | Talk 09:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested deletion

Done. -- Francs2000 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Policy question answers impressed me.

...As did use of word "sclerotic".

I thought you were exaggerating, but having just reread them I have to admit that, dammit, you're right. By the time I was halfway down the page I wanted to marry myself (alas, still not possible in UK law, apparently, despite the breakthrough in same-sex partnerships).

By the time I reached the bottom of the page, my feelings took on a more pressing urgency, and was quite willing to skip the marriage vows. It was then that the term "sclerotic" took on a quite different meaning... --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User: Niyogi

It wasn't vandalism, but thanks for reverting - I clicked the rollback button a little fast, not often that anon IP's are legitimitely editing registered users. I was about to revert when you caught it. - Dharmabum420 08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

your vote on my arbcom nomination

Hi, I saw you voted oppose due to my candidacy statement and/or my answers to the questions presented.. I think you have a fair comment, and I have expanded on my replies to questions already given as well as adding more info into my candidacy statement and answered some new questions. I would be grateful if you could re-read my questions page. If you have any additional questions or inquiries please add them to that page or ask me on my talk page and I will answer them as soon as I possibly can. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Vote

Hi Batmanand,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD: List of alleged pedophiles (sic)

From User talk:Bastin8

Just a tiny point, but you said on this AfD (in which I supported your call to delete) "Moreover, use of the term 'paedophile' is understood by the public to imply that the paedophile actually practises it, just as is homosexual." I am not sure you actually meant that. Do you really think that when someone says they are a homosexual, or gay, or like men, or whatever, that they are necessarily a practising homosexual? Of course not. "Homosexual" is a statement of sexual orientation, not of sexual practice. Batmanand 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it does not mean that one practises, but its meaning is beside the point. Legally, besides whether or not a statement is true, the only factor that matters under US law is that of interpretation by the audience. As the audience of Wikipedia is the general population, the general understanding (or misunderstanding, as it is on most subjects) is more important than either a dictionary or academic definition. Since all forms of protection from libel are based upon defamatory effects, for purposes of establishing suitability, popular definitions should always be adopted over academic ones in topics that are so poorly defined. Bastin8 23:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, but I also believe that under United States law (I could find the Supreme Court case if you want, but frankly I can't be bothered at the moment), the truth can never be libellous or defamatory. Therefore, the truth (that "homosexual" is necessarily an orientation as opposed to necessarily a practice) cannot be libel. Batmanand 11:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that the truth cannot be libellous (in the US), hence my reference to the importance of the truth above. However, as I pointed out in the AfD discussion, attempting to ascertain the 'truth' of a certain individual's sexual orientation, when that orientation is necessarily a thought, not an action, is an Orwellian minefield that I don't believe that Wikipedia should enter.

On the matter of the actual discussion (which is moot, because we agreed and 'won'), it is notable, for example, that there were individuals on that list that were included on the basis of their actions and/or convictions, when, if the list is defensible on any level, those criteria are ineligible. Bastin8 13:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I think we have on some level agreed. And as you say, we "won" as it is. Batmanand 14:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. ArbCom vote

That's fine. I take no offense to any of the comments made there, and I understand your basis for opposing. Ral315 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Berumen

He's not notable by any score. he's a self-published author. Where did you get the information that he's sold more than 5000 copies? As far as i know, that isn't the case. ElectricRay 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the message re closing out the AfD - that's good in a way; I had a horrible feeling that it was my responsibility to do it as the person who'd started the process in the first place. This whole admin thing is a bit pernicious in my view - they tend to carry themselves like school prefects: part goody two-shoes, part Nazi. I take great pride in having failed to be a school prefect, and will enjoy sitting at the back of the virtual classroom my grate frend peason cutting up my indiaruber under the desk and flicking bits at fotherington tomas chiz chiz.

anyway, thanks for letting me know. ElectricRay 09:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins

Thanks - I've not been directly troubled by one, but i've seen them behave pretty autocratically towards others. Not something (at this stage) I'm sufficiently moved to do something about.

The other thing that irks me somewhat about this site is the messianic reverence with which people hold Jimbo Wales. If I had a penny for every time someone said "as Jimbo says..." I'd be a rich man. The point of Wikipedia is that it's open source and collaborative. Wales is - or ought to be - seen as no more than a prime mover in a process which has taken over its own life, no more significant than the first chemical reactions in the primordial soup which kicked off the evolutionary process. It's interesting that users who are themselves (perhaps unwittingly) by small incremental steps creating a virtual universe here still feel the need to have some ultimate arbiter/creator - descibed elsewhere as a "GodKing", a label I think will catch on) who's ultimately responsible, much as people do in real life with religion. It's a crutch, and eventually it will dissipate. I think someone could write a thesis on it. ElectricRay 10:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. ElectricRay 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Feedback on Not_The_Nine_O'Clock_News.ogg

Hey there, I happened upon your recording and thought I might offer some thoughts on it. In terms of vocal performance, it's a very good recording. You read comfortably and fluidly--excellent work setting off the sample quotations! (And I also appreciated how you valiantly read through the external links at the end.)

On the technical side of production, it sounds like you might be a little close to your mic in this particular recording. Some of your plosives (like "p"s and "b"s) are generating that "windy" noise sound. I can also hear a buzzy distortion that's common when the mic is picking up too much sound. If you're not terribly close to your mic, you could try turning down its volume so it's not so sensitive. Otherwise, try speaking slightly further away from it. If you're still having trouble with the p/b thing, you can try placing a simple screen between your mouth and the mic (you can make a simple but effective one by stretching pantyhose over a coathanger).

I hope this is helpful to you with future spoken articles. If you find it irritating or offensive, accept my apologies and delete it away. Otherwise, good job. I know that other Wikipedians appreciate your work on Spoken Wikipedia, too. All the best! Ckamaeleon 10:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, Batmanand, for your support of my RfA. I greatly appreciated your very complimentary comments, and I hope I can live up to them :-). I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article tuck shop, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

COTW Project

You voted for History of art, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

History of art now COTW

Thanks to your support, this article is now the collaboration of the week. Feel free to help in any way possible during this week. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-19 20:22

First Family of the United States

Hey, someone redirected the entire First Family of the United States article into First Family. I just wanted to let you know, seeing as more people voted to keep it than to redirect. I'm reposting it. History21 17:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)History21

Ditch the big boxes!

Hey Rob hope you're doing ok... why have you ruined your user page with those massive blue and orange boxes?? Ray 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with [Ray]. The boxes in my opinion are fine but you have lost the huge chunk of text that made this page what it was. Shame, but what can I do? 82.153.114.182 19:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Quincel/Germanicus/Octavium

history of science

Please consider joining the History of Science WikiProject; it may appeal to several of your many interests.--ragesoss 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say thank you for voting for my RFA, of course if you ever need a hand, let me know :) - cohesion★talk 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi

May i ask you to take a look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrie Zwicker?

Thanks and peace. --Striver 18:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreicate your vote, thank you. May i ask you to also take a look at this AFD's and vote either delete or keep? I hope i didnt bother you.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem Reaction Solution
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11'
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Orkin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva

Thank you very much for your time, and have a good day.--Striver 14:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, i really appreciate your vote! --Striver 14:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

9/11

Thank you for sharing info about your stands. I appreciate all your votes, on the simple facts that they where based on policy and nothing else. If all votes where based only on policy, this would be a better wiki.

Whay is your position on my pov dispute here: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#POV?

Thanks, and peace. --Striver 15:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, i can repeat them:

According to WP:NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

So, basicly, it says that a POV that is "significantly" contested should not be presented as factual, no mater how popular it is.

Alright, now lets se what "significant" is:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

So, now we can se how to define three things:

• majority
• significant minority
• extremely small (or vastly limited) minority

NPOV stats that if a view is contested by the third view, it can be disregarded:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)

So, lets see what class the Bin Laden theory rejectors have:

As for point one:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts

So, lets see if we can do that:

"Believe news reports that Arabs carried out Sept. 11 attacks:

Total: True: 18%, Not true: 61%

Pakistan: True: 4%, Not true: 86%

Source: USAToday [1]

USAToday is a "commonly accepted reference texts", and suports that the Majority of the summ of the people in Lebanon, Turkey, Kuwait, Indonesia, Iran and Pakistan reject the Bin Laden theory.

However, in USA and Europe, in contrast to Asia, most people endorse the Bin Laden thoery.

But even in the USA, the are a "significant minority" that rejectst the Bin Laden theory. The criteria of being a "significant minority":

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

So, lets see if we can "easly name prominent adhereants":

• S9/11T.

No problem, that was easy. Hence, in the USA alone there is a significant rejection of the Bin Laden theory.

Even if we dissregard all outher contries, the "significant minority" in the USA makes it ""significant conteseted", and hence, acording to WP:NPOV, the Bin Laden theory is not to be presented as factual.

Add to it that the majority of the countries mentioned reject it, and you will come to the conclusion that it is a major breach of NPOV policy for a article to claim the Bin Laden theory is factual.

That is my arguement. Peace :) --Striver 15:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

respons 1

The moon landing and earth is flat theories are not comparable, they do not qualify as "significant minority", only as "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". You can not find a people like the S9/11T asserting those two theories. You wont find a country with a majority aserting those theories, not even a a country with a "significant minority" asserting any of those two.

As for truth, that is where the whole issue is. Those people do not belive it to be true and are not convinced to the evidence supporting the Bin Laden theory.

It like Atheism and Theism. One belives in God, the other dosent. Wikipedia dosnt care for evidence, only for the issue being significantly disputed or not. If it is significantly disputed:

It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

And by the way, i am familiar with the "evidence" for the Bin Laden theory, and i am not convinced of one single of them, in my view, there is not a single shread of evidence for the Bin Laden theory.

Dont take me wrong, im not saying that to start a argument regarding evidence, i am totaly unintrested in that. I only said that to show that the rejecters are equally convinced in their view. --Striver 16:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Noah's Ark

I've revised the intro as you suggested. Grateful if you could take another look. PiCo 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)