User talk:Pizza Puzzle7
|
|
Can you please cast your vote on Talk:Daniel C. Boyer? I know you've made your opinion perfectly clear, but Daniel Quinlan won't accept it unless it's made at the right time and place. -- Tim Starling 09:36, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
I included what I did about the Patriot Act because I thought the summary of the Patriot Act was biased an inaccurate. I will move my text, but I hope that somebody doesn't put a small definition about the Patriot Act that reads: "The Patriot Act gives the US government power to search anyone's house without a warrant, and spy on all Americans, and etc." To those people who oppose the Patriot Act, hyperbole will not convince supports of the Patriot Act to change their minds. Rather, it will convince them that they are right since their opponents can't oppose the Act without exaggerating about it. --reynwah
Thanks for your note. I've replied on my talk page. By the way, I've just seen your list of people you support, and I'm afraid I don't get it... Colin Powell? That bloke who played a large role in starting that war that you have been so strenuously complaining about...? Oh well, there's no accounting for taste. ;) By the way, congratulations on your uncleness! Do you have any tips for me on how to be an uncle...? :) -- Uncle Oliver 05:27 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. It's nice to know somone supports me. It seems everyone is against the truth. I suppose the breeders want their kids molested. Nostrum 04:58 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I don't really read the article, sorry :(
If you know an edit war is going to start, then you had better step back and try to get enough support from the talk page. In particular you are regarded by some as too aggressive in making sweeping changes.
Relaxing a bit. We are not in a hurry. If you want to win an edit war, you should think of a better strategy than just go ahead and fight your enemy. :P
wshun 18:35 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Why do you think nobody will read temp article? The main article, as you say, is too long and so "Short and concise" seems to be a good reason why people would read your article.
While I say "I don't really read the article", I mean I just browse both versions without a throughout reading. My comment is based on the first impression. I apology if I am wrong and I hurt your feeling.
I now get out of your edit war. It is none of my business anyway. Just one more advice, if you feel being treated unfairly then you may simply laugh and leave. An unfair edit war doesn't worth the fight.
Don't reply me about this. I now get out of your edit war.
Dear Mr. Puzzle:
Beats me, what a tertiary bigtop might be, so I'll append this like a normal entry.
Anyway, I noticed just after putting a minor edit in Telescope that it stomps on a change you made very recently. So, not wanting to start an edit war -- Why Galilei? I know it's his surname, but it's not the name by which he's been known to a few centuries of English speakers, and it seems nice to use familiar references in an encyclopedia. Is there a specific reason or Wiki policy for the more pedantic form?
No big deal, really, and I try not to be affected by the correlation (e.g., in soc.history.science) between calling him Galilei and engaging in spurious debunking of him, of which I don't accuse you.
Dandrake 22:56 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
As to why: Same reason as Alighieri, Da Vinci, Buonarotti, and (I forget Raphael's last name and am too lazy to look it up). Tycho? I dunno, maybe most of the people who talked about him were Italian. I know there was a book called the Anti-Tycho [swivels the chair to grab the Dialogue off the stack] written in 1621 by one Scipio Chiaramonte, aha. Cf. the Wiki list of persons with one name. A silly custom, being on a first-name basis with these giants, but at least it's not so pernicious as "Cardano's solution".
Dandrake 23:57 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being too cute about Dante, Leonardo (not the universal usage in English, so I was cheating), and Michelangelo.Dandrake 01:22 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm sure he'll see the you have new messages eventually. :-) Evercat 00:06 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Dear Pizza Puzzle,
Ok, I really tried to edit the USA PATRIOT Act article so that it included a neutral list of features and a balance between criticisms of the law and rebuttals to those criticisms.
Ideally, it's NPOV. But on subjects as divisive as Bush, or Iraq war, or PATRIOT act, isn't it better to rather have a section that balances pro- and anti- views? Obviously, people can differ on what is objective fact.
I added rebuttals to what I saw a criticism of the law rather than just deleting what I though was critical opinion.
Also, a statement can be factual but loaded if it leaves out information.
I would appreciate your reading and editing the latest permuation of PATRIOT thanks, mark
Thank you, for your edit of PATRIOT--i think it is tight and to the point now, with balanced views and accurate information, something it lacked before--reynwah
A final (I hope) bit of silliness about names. If you refer to Michelangelo, you obviously mean a certain artist. If you refer to Michelangelo Buonarotti, you may mean his nephew. (Though it's advisable to disambiguate.) Dandrake 21:25 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Julio 26! http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusi%F3n:26_Julio
I'm a wimp, I know. 172's comment about my foaming at the mouth don't have anything to do with me bowing out of things, though - it's just that I found myself thinking about the thing when out walking, or in bed, or on the toilet or something. It was all a bit much, really, especially as I don't have that much interest in the subject. Also, it looks like some other good people are coming in to the debate - hopefully they'll help with things. I'm still watching from the sidelines, and I'll step in if anything very dramatic happens, but I'd rather spend my time writing about chess or music or something. --Camembert
(to Martin) It is not fair to move the New Imperialism discussion back to Talk:New Imperialism. 172 and Jtdirl are abusing their sysop powers by protecting pages in which they are engaged in edit wars. This is a topic of importance to the overall wiki -- not merely to the one article. Pizza Puzzle
- I've added a description of the controversy and a link. Martin 17:31 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think you went a bit far in proposing JT for de-admin. Aside from the fact that I don't think he's done anything to deserve losing his sysop status, he has been one of the few Wikipedians who have tried to be supportive of you in the past. Unless you were trying to make some more general point (perhaps about page protection policy in general, or the absurdity of certain other "rules") I suggest you reflect on your request and perhaps consider rescinding it. Even if you were just trying to make a point, I suggest you clarify that to avoid confusion. --Dante Alighieri 18:20 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Well, I can see that you have a very different view of JT than I do, but you have every right to your own opinions. --Dante Alighieri 22:20 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I am going to unprotect the New Imperialism article so it can be editied normally, but please be pragmatic and do not insert the link! I am sure you can wait two days to see the result of the vote. CGS 18:54 28 Jul 2003 (UTC).
I did as you suggested - putting my version at (temp) - hope you don't mind. Just revert it if you're not happy with it. I'm not best pleased at having it recerted after five seconds given the time I spent on it, but I wash my hands of it now. Well, I might have it as a personal subpage just to show how it should be done. Graculus 04:57, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Like I said, PP, feel free to revert if you don't like it: at least you had the decency to ask. I've said throughout that I think both articles need fundamental revision, and that involved taking out excessive headings, rearranging the paragraphs into more logical sections and eliminating some items that were questionable or of doubtful relevance. I'm sorry if you think it's too radical, but I recognise that you'd created the page and were working almost alone on your revision, so revert it to your last version if you wish. Graculus 18:23, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I agree, I view my version as a work in progress -- im completely willing to discuss it - the best way is to start with sentence one - decide if u like it or not - and if so continue - if not contact me
I have the following points that I feel should be noted:
- Discussion of various persons should be extremely concise (ie Chamberlain - Disraeli) - these people have their own pages
- Discussions of regional affairs should be extremely concise (ie Congo Free State)- they have thier own page
- Discussions of word origins should be extremely concise (ie imperialism) - these have their own page
- Discussions of imperialist theories should be extremely concise (ie [[theories of imperialism) - these have their own page
When I looked at your version of the temp page - I saw an opening paragraph I didnt like (and that didnt seem to incorporate any of my opening (including the lists - look at my version and see the lists of names and places)) - i saw theories of imperialism - and I saw a discussion of the origins of the word "imperialism" -- which is why I reverted it -- I am willing to discuss all of this though. Pizza Puzzle
I've inserted your link back into New Imperialism. CGS 16:47, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC).
My take on New Imperialism (temp or otherwise)
i have no expertise in the matter. i have read The Age of Empire by Eric Hobsbawm, but that is just about it. in general terms i think the 172-version of New Imperialism would be best both shortened and divided both. he seems to be doing the dividing with the (slightly perverse) intention of insisting that even if divided into several articles, it can still only be added to, not edited for conciseness at all. this is in my opinion a recipe for disaster.
that said; your replacement article at present suffers from having some statements in the article-text proper, which appear much like mere paraphrases of "see also". this seriously mars the flow of the article.
in a general POV way what most bugs me is the general assumption (in all wikipedia references of him) that Joseph Chamberlain is lumped in as a uber-imperialist. while it is the accepted view historians have of him, in my private view he was as much an imperialist as Winston Churchhill was a Russophile. -- Cimon Avaro
Click here for information on PP's identity. Evercat put an incredible amount of work into proving the Lir/PP connection, linking him to his innumerable past identities, such as Adam, Bridget, Lir, Vera Cruz, Susan Mason, and Dietary Fiber. 172 08:39, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I know he does. There's nothing I can do about it though. Having been involved with the page, I have no right to protect it. Not that I necessarily would anyway. Angela 19:25, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I moved his temp page to User talk:Pizza Puzzle/New Imperialism (temp) 172 07:01, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC) The talk page for Lir's temp is at User talk:Pizza Puzzle/New Imperialism (temp) talk
Hi. PP - re your proposed name change: don't bother, as others will identify you soon enough. As far as I'm concened, you're entitled - in the absence of up-to-date evidence to the contrary - to an opportunity to show that you're a constructive contributor, whether or not you've done anything inappropriate in some dim and distant past. I'll continue to support your right to contribute as long as you act appropriately (and we all lose our temper on occasion however much we try to resist - see my past tirades). So be Pizza Puzzle if that's your preferred style, and let's all take this project forward. Graculus 15:28, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
From Village Pump: It is obvious that certain users have become convinced that I am another user against which they hold a grudge. I will be changing my account name so that this is no longer a problem for me. Pizza Puzzle
- Hold on a second. Two users can't be registered under the same name, right? So there should be only one Pizza Puzzle - the troll. -Smack 01:05, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Tell Lir that User:The troll isn't taken.
- I think User:Vera Cruz is untaken. (I'm not convinced, but you're helping!) Daniel Quinlan 01:25, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
- I hope that the new Lir persona isn't interested in jumbled lists pertaining to New Imperialism! 172 12:11, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi Pizza Puzzle, welcome back. Nice to see you around again. Tannin
- Just stay away from that green kryptonite. :)
- No, I didn't have anything special in mind, I was just carried away with one of those visual things -- "must .... educate ..... world" -- I could see one of those comicbook superheros (with a thought bubble - "must .. educate ... world") crawling valiantly through the rubble clutching one leg, resisting the overwhelming urge to pass out from wounds manfully sustained, grimly determined to restore truth, justice, and the .... oh yeah - I'd forgotten what Superman used to say after "truth" and "justice" till just now. Funny how you forget things like that. Indeed, it always seemed very silly over here, that last bit. Maybe they should have dubbed over it for the local release. Whatever. It's late here and I'm making even less sense than usual. Anyway, I wasn't thinking of NI - though now that you mention it, that probably is an area rich in salts of kryptonite! But you don't need me to tell you that.
- Me, I practically never edit controversial stuff anymore. It's not that I've lost interest, it's just that I have so little time with all this wildlife photography I'm doing now (it has become an absolute obsession) that I can't even do as many fauna articles as I want to. Not to mention work, Bird Forum, Storage Forum, food, sleep - hell, sometimes I even try to pretend that I have time for a social life. And speaking of time, it's time I went to bed. -- Tony
Welcome back Adam! Angela
Welcome back. Arent you supposed to be editing under user:Adam?戴眩sv 00:53, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
- see [1] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006469.html), sv.
- Hey there Pizza Puzzle, long time no see. I think Pizza Puzzle is a good name, you did lots of good work using it. Many users who only recently came to Wikipedia probably know you by that name alone. -- Tim Starling 02:47, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
Welcome, stranger. --Camembert
I've been trying to get an article on the history of the World Chess Championship written, but I'm getting lost in all the politics of the last few years. Not played the game much recently - dropped a knight when I was winning an endgame in a club match a couple of weeks ago, and it sort of put me off a bit (you're right though - playing it beats writing about it). I've been playing go more, but I'm lousy at that. One of these days, I'll find something I good at, I swear it... --Camembert