User talk:Clutch/archive
|
|
Hello there Clutch, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, I see you are a fellow GNU freak. Right on! Cheers! --maveric149
Clutch, I love Jehovah's Witnesses. I have the November 1, 2002 copy of The Watchtower before me right now. I reccommend the back page article We All Need Commendation. I won't stand for any JW-bashing here on Wikipedia. Nor will tolerate a whitewash. Pure, fair NPOV all the way! --Ed Poor
- Thanks for the note, Ed. I support religious freedom for everyone. I don't have a copy of that issue. Is the article somewhere on the web? It's been a while since anyone dropped the Watchtower and Awake off at my house. I'm glad you won't stand for JW-bashing. However, just because RK and Modemac have been waving their hands around shouting "whitewash!" doesn't make me a whitewasher. Their constant slurs and innuendos, repeated shouts that I am a "vandal" while dismissing my arguments and reasoning out of hand, have not made being an editor here a pleasant experience. --Clutch 20:42 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
- Ah, don't take those guys so seriously. They can't ban you; so, do as you think best. Believe it or not, for my first few months as a contributor I myself was often called a "vandal". But as I got more into the spirit of things I learned how to make changes that others would accept, and now I'm a sysop! See my user page for some general tips, and feel free to ask for my help at any time. --Ed Poor 20:47 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
- Thats a relief. When I tried to post some more detail on the vandalism page as user 63.* my changes never "took" so I assumed RK or Modemac had just gone ahead and banned my IP anyway. --Clutch 20:53 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
Is wikipedia-l appropriate for the kind of discussions that happen on talk pages? --Clutch 21:13 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
- Welcome to the wonderful world of dealing with Lir. My condolences. -- Zoe
Lir doesn't seem open to any outside suggestions on how she can improve her writing. All we can do is wait till she decides to move on elsewhere, or becomes a better writer. In the meantime she's creating a lot of work for everyone else, trying to clear up her muddy writing. Her intentions seem good, but she takes all advice as an attack, and worse, doesn't seem to really understand what goes in an encyclopedia. At first I assumed she was just an enthusiastic 12 year old; but seeing the type of articles she has edited, such as The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, she clearly has read a fair bit and come to the proper political conclusions about the evilness of Capitalism, the goodness of anarchy, etc. She's an enigma that I don't feel any motivation to solve. Thanks for your condolences, Zoe. :-) --Clutch 00:13 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of moving "An Anarchist's Creed" to the Meta-Wikipedia at m:An Anarchist's Creed, and changed your user page to reflect the change. I hope you don't mind, but this appears to be the right thing to do given current Wikipedia policy. -- Anon.
Clutch, thank you for adding nice things and taking away nasty things, at the Unification Church article. I only hope you don't "overdo it": there are still a large number of people who associate cult, cult suicides and deprogramming with my church -- out of ignorance rather than malice, I'm sure. :-) Ed Poor
- I removed those links because they were truly unrelated. There was nothing in the articles linked to that referred to the Unification Church. If someone makes an article about "Why some people think the Unification Church is a cult", then I wouldn't have nearly as much of a leg to stand on in delinking it. More importantly than writing feel-good articles, we are trying to maintain objectivity, balance, and a NPOV. All three are separate things. RK may froth at the mouth and say objectivity isn't a necessary attribute of encyclopedias, but every encyclopedia I've ever seen has made a best-effort attempt at objectivity. During my whole adolescence and childhood I read encyclopedias for entertainment. I think I know how they are supposed to go. --Clutch
- Okay, I wasn't really arguing anyway :-) --Ed Poor
I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you! WOO! Lir 04:08 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)
there is nothing wrong with editing frequency and wavelength Lir 11:07 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- You have caused a lot of pent-up hostility against yourself. Innocent or not, noone here is in a state to rationally evaluate your contributions; if you go away for a week and learn to use the Show preview button, I'm certain that people will be a lot nicer to you. It's up to you; are you a masochist, or do you like it when people treat you nicely, as an equal? --Clutch 11:12 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
I am quite content. Lir 11:15 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Your answer wasn't clear. Did you mean to say "Yes, I am a total masochist, I get orgasms from your harsh feelings toward me"? --Clutch 11:22 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
Clutch, can you please stop the edit war with Lir? It's cluttering up the Recent Changes page. Thanks. --Eloquence 11:23 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Orgasms good...Lir 11:24 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Ordinarily Eloquence, I would. I respect your wishes. However Lir litters the Recent Changes quite as much all by herself; I don't see how this edit war makes it any worse. Sorry. If I see signs of capitulation, I'll back off. I can stand a few edits in poor taste, but when someone edits as prolifically as Lir, they better at least have a modicum of taste; she seems to lack it entirely. --Clutch 11:27 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- There are ongoing discussions about whether or not to ban Lir on enwiki-l. For the moment, it's best for all of us to be patient. You can help me with my attempt to build a gallery of Fayum mummy portraits if you're bored ;-) --Eloquence 11:35 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Good design happens in chunks Lir 11:40 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Make the chunks bigger then. Or isn't your mind big enough to hold them? --Clutch 11:47 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- maybe its ADHD! Lir 11:54 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- ADHD is no barrier to good taste. Myself being a case in point. --Clutch 11:57 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- but maybe its like one of those paintings with dots and you havent spent enough time staring at my edits with crossed eyes! Lir 12:00 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Yet more evidence that you don't give a shit about the intentions and modus operandi of a real life Encyclopedia. --Clutch 12:05 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Oh, did I do something wrong? Lir 12:08 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
Clutch, you've been placing comments directly on user:Lir. Please stop. If you have something to say, use User talk:Lir instead. -- Stephen Gilbert 12:58 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Roger. Noted for future reference. I feel what is currently on that page is appropriate though. --Clutch 13:05 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
Clutch, I wonder if you could respond on Talk:Richard Wagner about why you removed RK's edit from that page? I'm very curious, because I can see no reason for you having done it at all, and it might appear to a cynic that you were just persuing a vendetta against him (I believe you two have had run-ins before). --Camembert
Hi Clutch, I've seen your comment on Mirsa's user page. I didn't say, that her/his comments are anti-Semitic, and calling me a Zionist is wrong as well. I won't continue that edit war, but I am still of the opinion, that the statement of ethnic cleansing must not go into the first sentence. Have a look at Mirsa's other contributions, that is no NPOV at all. - Cordyph
- I only looked at the one edit by her, on the History of Israel page. It looked like you were crying wolf in that one instance. I'll keep my eye on Mirsa in the future. If I see her violating NPOV I'll try to step in and help her see the light. As for the accusations of Zionism, etc... I was speaking more about RK. But the fact you felt you had to justify yourself means you are sensitive to the issue. I appreciate that, and hope I never do have cause to apply the same accusations to you as I've had to apply to RK and some of his friends. --Clutch 13:50 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)
The way we show someone to the door, says something about our standards. I didn't like what you did to Lir's page last night. All you had to do was wait for the developers to apply the account block.
Okay? Now let's all get back to work. --Ed Poor
- You don't understand. At the time I started editing her page, I had no idea she was going to be banned. It wasn't even a topic for discussion on the mailing lists. I figured since noone else was going to do anything, I had to take direct action. And my direct action was to let her know in a dramatic (I love drama) way that at least one person was annoyed with her to the point of wanting her gone. Had I any idea she was about to be banned, I wouldn't have bothered making any edits to her page. Be that as it may, the edits are done now and I sincerely hope Lir reads the article on Good Taste I posted. It should make her contributions here much more welcome when she comes back. --Clutch
- Try to make it clear that it's you speaking, rather than Jimbo. --Ed Poor
Anti-Semitism is a life-and-death issue for millions of Jews. It's natural for RK to be touchy about this. Also, no one likes to be falsely accused or to have their favorite people maligned. Let's try to find a balance in all articles mentioning anti-Semitism. Is it safe to unblock the Wagner article now? --Ed Poor
- If you unblock the Wagner article, I'll try to insert a sentence about Wagners anti-Semitism that is in keeping with the rest of the article. I can't guarantee RK won't feel sensitive about it. And Ed, the "life and death" part was more than 50 years ago. I think it's time for the Jewish people to move on and come out of their shells instead of attacking anything that moves. --Clutch
- Let's see the sentence first. --Ed Poor
- IMHO a lot of this comes down to: some people feel that strong reactions to anti-Semitism are appropriate, and some don't. They have a right to their own opinions. HOWEVER, it is the responsibility of the Wikipedia to keep things in perspective. So, we need to stop worrying about personalities here - it DOESN'T MATTER what contributors' personal opinions are! What matters is that articles are not only NPOV but balanced.
Clutch wrote: "Ed, the "life and death" part was more than 50 years ago. I think it's time for the Jewish people to move on and come out of their shells instead of attacking anything that moves."
-- Clutch, this could be interpreteed as naive. From CNN news Nov 21, 2002, "Bus blast kills at least 11 in Jerusalem. Schoolchildren among suicide bomber's victims." http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/21/mideast/index.html There are a lot of people today who would like to see all Israelis and/or Jews dead, and some are willing to act on this. (This is NOT to say that other groups aren't equally threatened or discriminated against.) IMHO, what happened 50 years ago was that the Jews, as a group, learned that it was not wise to be blase about these issues.
- That isn't germane; today, for every Jew killed, ten Palestinians are murdered. It's the Israeli Jews doing the oppressing. --Clutch
- You're entitled to that POV, but can you write about Israel or anti-Semitism neutrally, given that you feel that way? I'd love to see some facts about Israeli Jews oppressing people -- or even just a summary of any prominent person's opinion about that -- added to the articles. Would you like to do that? And can you do it neutrally? --Ed Poor
- I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit the articles about Israel or anti-Semitism. Even if I had all my sources lined up in a row, it would still be a very ticklish operation due to the sensitivity of the pro-Zionists who think anything not pro-Zionist is de facto anti-Semitic. Thank you for the offer though. Maybe by February I'll have enough time to think of tackling such a Sysiphean task. --Clutch
"Not germane"? What isn't germane? You said it was 50 years ago, I said it was 50 years ago and also today. -- "For every Jew killed, ten Palestinians are murdered. It's the Israeli Jews doing the oppressing." Clutch, I recognize that Palestinians are also oppressed and killed. I said "This is NOT to say that other groups aren't equally (meaning "also" - perhaps not clear) threatened or discriminated against." So again, NPOV and balance would indicate that we say things like "Jews were discriminated against and killed in situations A, B, and C. Palestinians were discriminated against and killed in situations D, E, and F. Martians were discriminated against and killed in situations G, H, and I."
- Who are you, anonymous poster? Can't you use the tilde key on your keyboard? Outside the stolen land of Israel, Jews aren't in fear of their lives. ANYONE who steals land has to be careful of their lives around the original inhabitants; the Jews aren't anything special in this regard. Noone is going around killing Jews because they are Jews these days. That is what ended more than 50 years ago. Therefore that article about the bomb blast in Jerusalem is not germane. --Clutch
You wrote, "The reason everyone makes a big deal about Wagner being anti-Semitic is because Hitler liked listening to his music. It's not fair to judge a man badly just because a monster who lived half a century after you died happened to like your music." Why not cast this into encyclopedic prose, and submit it for inclusion in the article? Or start a new Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism article? --Ed Poor
- Certainly, once the Wagner article is unblocked and I can move the material from one article to another. --Clutch
Since you are not Lir, you probably should not be changing the content of Lir's user page, and especially should not be changing it to an attack on Lir's beliefs. It's a bit rude, I think. --KQ 02:25 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
- KQ, did you look closely at the edits I made? I wrote nothing insulting Lir, I just cleaned up some of his excesses to be more neutral. Can you be more specific about what changes I made that "attack Lir's beliefs"? --Clutch 02:30 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
- Your phrase "I am a young male nihilist who sometimes adopts the rhetoric of socialist anarchism" indicates that Lir is a posturer, not to be taken seriously. Though I also disagree with much of what Lir says and does, Lir's userpage is not the place for me to impose my opinion of Lir's actions on Lir. Lir's userpage is for Lir to edit, just as your userpage is for you to edit and not Lir. I'm reverting the page now. Please leave it alone. --KQ 02:55 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
A better and more stealthy way to easily check a user's contribs from a red-linked user page is to just open it up and hit save. Since you didn't place any text in the page the page isn't created in the database but you are still presented with the user contribs link. --mav 05:40 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
- Thanks Maveric. I'll definately do that next time. Is there anyway to un-create the page I just created then? --Clutch
- Well I could nuke it but that would be unseemly. How about replacing your note with a welcome message or a <p> tag? --mav
- Done. --Clutch 05:55 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
Why does yam deserve a link but peanut does not? 129.186.80.133 06:19 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
- Good question. Feel free to remove the link to yam. --Clutch 06:23 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
Why not add the link to peanut instead? 129.186.80.133 06:24 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
- What part of banned don't you understand? Lir's banned IP 129.186.80.130. Stop trying to subvert the process. --mav
- I'm not a sysop, Maveric. I don't know which IP goes with which user. Subverting the process was the least of my intentions. Thank you for letting me know. --Clutch 06:31 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
- Oh no! That wasn't directed towards you but towards Lir. --mav
Clutch, stop modifying Lir's user page. LIR'S PAGE IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO THERE. LEAVE HER ALONE (since she's a "her"). It's blatant that you don't respect her. In the process, I feel that you don't respect the spirit of Wikipedia, either. Whatever bad things Lir has done, I think she deserves respect. And respect means not unilaterally modifying her personal pages here, however bad you think of them. If you feel pissed off, then why don't you just leave ? Mind this: YOU are pissing quite a few people off, too. Include me in that list. YOU are being anti-social, the way you act against Lir. I don't like that, at all. FvdP 10:56 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
- There seems to be evidence that Lir is not who "she" claims to be, and is in fact male -- other editors have a substatial amount of circumstantial evidence as to Lir's real identity.
- Thank you. I've been operating the assumption that Lir is a male for the past week now, ever since Cunctator revealed that Lir called himself "Adam". --Clutch 11:08 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
- This does not change the core of the matter for me. FvdP 11:22 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
Hey, Clutch, let's all just knock it off on Lir, eh Lir is banned, so just let it go now, huh? --User:Jimbo Wales
Nothing would please me more. Could you please protect his User_talk page though? --Clutch
Done. Now we shall have peace in our time, as Neville Chamberlain said. ha ha :-) --User:Jimbo Wales
In short, if Lir was banned for doing something, then what that was should not be squirreled away. The whole situation is being mishandled, and your edits of Lir's pages have exacerbated all of the problems. --The Cunctator
- You mean we shouldn't "squirrel away" the goatse vandals either? The goatse vandals and Lir both attacked the community; the damage done by both needed to be repaired, fixed, or neutralized. --Clutch
It would be POV to say that it is dangerous to put a chemical in our water that the government insists is a safe procedure. Vera Cruz 20:37 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)
Clutch, please stop your POV tirade or I will be forced to take this the mailing list. Even Helga wasn't so brazen as you are being on the social worker article. --mav
I have direct, first-hand knowledge of everything I have written on the Social worker page. By all means, take it to the list. --Clutch 01:39 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
- Is your sample group larger than one, or should we bow to the power of your anecdotal evidence? If you mean to move me to tears, I'm there already thinking of your hesitance to think logically.
clutch-how is it pov to state that something is controversial? The flouride article is simply mentioning what the controversy is over -- it actually serves to educate people regarding the fluoride controversy... is it in my water? in my dental products? 129.186.80.124 01:43 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
Hey, Clutch --
I haven't been involved in the edit wars concerning Social work and Fluorine at all, and haven't even really been reading all of the changes, but if you're the only one arguing your side of the arguments, maybe you should step back and take a breath for a while. -- Zoe
What's going on here!? --KQ