User talk:Elliskev/Acrhive 1

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 21:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

"either a little liberal or a little conservative" - Gilbert & Sullivan

Thanks for the kind remarks. I've found that, even though I consider myself a liberal -- probably because I grew up in the US during the Civil Rights movement, and protested against the war in Vietnam -- I can usually find points of agreement with intelligent conservatives, and vice versa. IMHO, the extreme hostility is caused primarily by people who fan the flames of controversy in order to sell newspapers or get voters to the polls.

Over in the article on "Liberalism", we need someone to write the "Criticism of Liberalism" section who can maintain a NPOV. The person who currently wants to write it, Ruzmanci, keeps saying things like "Liberals are in favor of forced prostitution." or "Liberals are in favor of child labour." which of course get reverted as soon as he posts them. Would you like to give it a try? Rick Norwood 13:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

opinions

I've had the same problem -- I know what I think, but that's not encyclopedic. What I do is google until I gather some good references from books or articles. Rick Norwood 13:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Baiting

The sockpuppet calls me an "idiot" and I'm the one who's baiting? Read the comments a little more closely next time. And I'll "move on" when I'm good and ready. Yeesh. Eleemosynary 02:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. And keep in touch! :) --Elliskev 04:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Improvement to user page

Changing someone else's user page is something I generally consider a "no-no," but it seemed appropriate here. Glad you liked it! — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC), Feast of St. Elizabeth of Hungary

List of Europeans

You accuse the nomination of WP:POINT without, apparently, looking at who nominated. This is the first list I've placed on AfD. There's nothing pointish about it. List of Europeans is absurdly broad. Please keep in mind good faith. It was a fair nom. Marskell 22:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

AfDs may come in patches—people notice and think "ya, there's more like this"—which is not in-itself a fault. Indeed, even a mass listing of an entire category would be fair if an editor earnestly felt the articles don't belong. It becomes point where the purpose is to disrupt, particularly if the nominator knows it will be voted down and just wants to waste others' time. However, I was confident Europeans would be deleted. It's not comparable to List of Italian-American Whatevers and the others that have arrived on AfD—it's, say, a step below List of Women or List of Children in it's breadth. Marskell 10:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish publishsers

As above, you voted to "keep" based on a WP:POINT nomination. I implore you to reconsider your vote because even if the nomination may appear as a WP:POINT it most certainly is not. List of Jewish publishers is as absurdly specific as List of Europeans is broad. We have no lists even close to list of jewish publishers. See for yourself: List of Muslim publishers List of Buddhist publishers, List of Divorced publishers, List of German publishers

The point is we just CANT has such specifity on Wikipedia, especially for something so trivial. If this was a Category I wouldn't have a problem with it but as a list it's just flaunting and potentionally dangerous (as feul for conspiracy theorists). I thank you for reading my message and hope that you reconsider. If you still want further reasonings for changing your vote. Ask. 72.144.150.115 22:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm replying on my own talk page, as a reply to an IP talk page doesn't really seem appropriate in this case. My Keep vote is based on what I see as a nomination to make a point regarding another nomination. I strongly disagree with this tactic. I suppose a case could be made that my Keep vote is just as much WP:POINT as that to which I object.

If the AfD for this list came up on its own, I'd be inclined to vote Delete, though I'd probably skip it based on apathy. If I was convinced that it was nominated for reasons that you cite, i.e. potentially dangerous fuel for conspiracy theorist, I'd probably be persuaded to vote Delete. But, this nomination was not made in a vacuuum. See my original Keep vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Europeans, which I have changed to Abstain. --Elliskev 01:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Elliskev, I think you are mistaking these AFD edits with the WP:POINT ones that User:Arniep has been doing (in retaliation to some of his lists being voted on). The List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society and List of Jewish publishers were all done separate before the WP:POINT vandalism. Both of those Afds are completely genuine! I implore you to reconsider your votes. 72.144.68.65 02:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. I see that the earliest entry for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish publishers is November 15. The log must have been created a day later. I will withdraw my Keep vote and abstain. It looks like the other is a moot point, as it appears to have been removed.

p.s. why don't you register so I (and others) can talk on your talk page to you. --Elliskev 02:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the other page is still there. But, I never voted there. --Elliskev 02:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Comment on Sin

Thanks for your compelled comment regarding sin and respect. It is a thought we should all remember in dealing with people. It is a fascinating subject. Somehow when we interact solely with other people on the same path, we insulate ourselves from the world and from major sin. Then when we are confronted with people that are significantly dissimilar, we often react badly. I don't desire to excuse ourselves because gross sin can be so offensive, but rather to point to how Christ, the paragon of righteousness, was able to constantly remember the value of each soul. Love was His priority that was not subsumed by "righteousness". He was/is a perfect example and I fail in so many ways. Yet, He continues to love each of us. May we remember that as we deal with others. Thank you again; your thoughts will help me. Storm Rider 20:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

On the Catholic Church of Wikipedia

As you have described yourself as a Catholic, I thought I would alert you as a co-religionist to your opportunity to delete the particularly offensive article, Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia.--Thomas Aquinas 21:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A Message to Pro-Life Wikipedians

The section "Foetal Pain" (Fetal Pain) has been deleted from the Abortion article. Could you help restore it? If you would like to see what was deleted, go to my talk page, scroll to "Fetal Pain," and click the provided link.--Thomas Aquinas 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT violation

I have blanked this user's user page and warned them on their talk page, if they continue I may have to block but in cases like this it would be a last resort especially since this isn't really disruptive to other users. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting Request

Hi Elliskev. We have a poll to eliminate the contentious section on American Liberalism that you had earlier commented against. Would you mind coming to the page to vote "No?" The poll runs for two weeks. It's at the bottom of the page [1] luketh 20:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, you pretty much screwed me over. The only reason the section is more NPOV than before is because I changed it. Look at the history. They're trying to change it back. luketh 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the section, Elliskev. Rhobite already changed it back. There's no longer anything about anti-conservative comments. Removing this inherently POV section is the only way to have peace on this article and to make it NPOV. Why don't you read the section they've just modified and see if you can conscientiously change your vote. If left here, there going to keep adding more anti-liberal stuff. It's going to be a continual fight and a lot of wasted time for me and others. luketh 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and letting me know your conservative stance. My only argument is that this article is not about the word "liberal" but about the political philosophy of American Liberalism. I think it's much better to debate philosophical points than to debate who used the word as a slur. It just doesn't belong. In any case, thanks for your honesty. luketh 20:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I DO think it's right leaning, but more important than that, I don't think it's relevant. This was exactly the reason that several months ago, with approval from the other contributors at the time, I changed the title from "Liberalism in the United States" to "American Liberalism." Now they're bringing back the linguistic wrangling that spoiled the other article. I spent a lot of time researching American liberalism to find out what it stands for and to separate it from Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and other political movements and uses of the word "liberal." If people disagree with my substantive contributions, they should contribute usefully, instead of undermining the philosophy by trying to associate a meaning of the word that applies more to socialism than American liberalism. It's not accepted by liberals that "liberal" has been redefined as a slur so this section by nature will definitely remain POV. Most importantly, this section has nothing to do with the philosophy. Something like this would never fly on the conservatism page and it shouldn't fly here either even though it happens that the current editors are conservative (which makes no sense anyway). luketh 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. It's not so much the hijacking of the word that I'm concerned about. It's the dishonesty. If the article were labelled "Liguistics of "Liberal"" or something, it would be fine. I guess I'll have to fight to keep honesty. For example, the claim that the media has a "liberal" bias has absolutely nothing to do with pejorative use of liberalism and even less to do with American Liberalism, and was obvsiously added inappropriately. This section opens up the article to political fighting. You pretty much sunk me, though. No one will vote with me now that 4 others have voted "Yes." Anyway it was a losing battle because I didn't start the poll, they stuck me on the "No" side, and restricted the poll with language that sounds reasonable even though their motives are not. luketh 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome message

I just wanted to say thank you for the welcome message you left on my talk page. Keep up the good work. Sawran 23:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Elliskev,

I really don't want to die on any hill (g). But if I ask people to contribute their opinions. I won't get blocked and I have recently contributed a brand new article. Chooserr

Pro-life Alliance

The article Pro-Life Alliance has been nominated for deletion. Chooserr

Catholic League

Thanks for editing that article... I tried to clean it up a little as well.

It is not my POV, but I created the Catholics for a Free Choice article, if you'd like to help me expand that. If anything, their anti-Vatican on the UN agenda should be exposed. Though in a NPOV way. ;)

Good to meet you. JG of Borg 21:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for adding a link to St. Augustine Cathedral in Kalamazoo. Are you from around K-zoo? Leave me a message on my talk page. It was nice meeting you.

-Jake

Ann's RfA

Hi,Elliskev. I want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA, and also for the congratulations you sent to my talk page. (And of course, you're welcome for the reversion of vandalism!) I know I'm very late thanking you, but I've been a bit caught up with college work. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. Thanks again. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 17:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Year of the Eucharist.

Started work on extending the article. Dominick ^(TALK) 22:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My spelling REALLY stinks... Dominick ^(TALK) 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My recent rfa

Dear Elliskev, I wanted to thank you for your support during my recent RfA. :)

--Syrthiss 22:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion!

Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life. Dwain 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

The message you left on my talk page is very kind. Given the nature of the issue in question I was concerned about giving offense. When an issue touches a deep nerve sometimes people lose perspective. I avoid editing 9/11 articles for that reason, except for one contribution: [2]. I'm the second from last story. Best wishes. I look forward to collaborating with you too. Durova 02:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Contraceptive patch

Sean Black has removed an informative section from the Contraceptive patch article describing a law suit which is currently taking place and some of the risks involved in using such barbaric devices. Since you are listed as Pro-Life I was wondering if you might restore the original version, for I don't personally want to get baited into a 3rvt ban. Thank you, Chooserr 07:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thank you for your welcome and tips. I'm just starting to get to grips with Wikipedia. I've got a headache! I hope to translate soon!--Carolille 15:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

CAoW

Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's RfA

Hi Elliskev,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

AYPS

Just a note to inform you that I have replied here. Regards, squell (feel free to remove this) 19:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)