Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:21, 17 March 2008

Welcome to my Talk page. Add your comments to the bottom of the page and I will answer them there.

Archives

Archive 1.

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3

Adelaide Meetup Next: 15 November 2024 Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk • edit

Hi WLRoss - we're planning a third meetup in Adelaide sometime in the coming weeks, and would love to have you there. If you can, please help decide a location, a date and a time here. Thanks! ~ Riana ⁂ 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

David Hicks charges source

Hi, I think The Australian also moves articles to a pay/subscription site after a period of time. The ABC seems fairly stable though. SmithBlue (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it does I suggest that having both cites wont hurt as there appears to be a difference in the wording of the charges when comparing what was reported in the U.S. to the version released by the DoD in Australia. As Hicks is an Aussie it is appropriate that our version is used in the article. Wayne (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maximus charector

If he was based on Pompaianus >>> then he would be much older

--Blain Toddi (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Title change

Request for change in consensus: Change title to "Franklin Coverup Incident"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

Request for Comment: Change title to more neutral "Franklin Coverup Incident" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostle12 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Apostle12 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Take Two: Request for change in consensus

Take Two: Request for change in consensus. Change title to "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title "Franklin Coverup Hoax" is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

In the previous section, various editors commented on their support for, or opposition to, a name change to "Franklin Coverup Incident." Those who commented over the space of several days included Sherurcij, PopeFauveXXIII, Wayne, Orange Mike, Apostle12, and Rosicrucian.

Orange Mike came up with a suggestion: How about "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"? Neutral, takes no position regarding "hoax" or "coverup" claims.

I support this newly proposed title change and am asking for additional comments at this time from concerned editors. Apostle12 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: the discussion of name change to "Franklin child abuse allegations"

I understand, Wayne. But Rosicrucian is correct regarding the redirects; everyone who types in "Franklin Scandal" or "Franklin Coverup" will arrive at the article, whatever we decide to call it. There may be a limit to what we can achieve here through consensus. Would you reconsider your opposition, please?Apostle12 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11

Hi,

you might want to look at the list I (we) are compiling at: Talk:9/11#NPOV / missing_facts. I appreciate any addition or criticism you can make. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's is not a genitive

I don't want to be a grammar nazi, but "It is POV to use it for a legal determination based on it's own opinion." shouldn't have an apostrophe. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3

Adelaide Meetup Next: 15 November 2024 Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk • edit

Hi WLRoss - after some planning we've decided to hold the third Adelaide Wikimeetup on Sunday, 17th February, 2008. The meeting will be held at Billy Baxter's in Rundle Mall at 11:30AM. Further details and directions are available on the meetup page. Please RSVP here by 20:00UTC on 15th February 2008 (that's 6AM Saturday for our time zone) so that we can inform the restaurant about numbers. Hope to see you there!

You are receiving this message because you are in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia or are listed at WP:ADEL#Participants. If this has been sent in error, please accept our apologies!

On behalf of Riana ⁂, 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Revised

Hi Wayne - since Sunday is inconvenient for many people due to church, we are rescheduling for Saturday. I hope you will still be able to attend! Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fred West

Hi, the "New Criminologist" link doesn't really support the contention with regard incest in the West family, it's only mentioned there as an "it is believed". You'll be aware of WP:BLP, and although that doesn't apply to West, he may have living relatives to whom it does. Do you have a more concrete source for this? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty of sources. I was deciding which to use but you adding cn tags within seconds of my edits prompted me to use the first ones I put my hands on. The second edits reference also confirms the first edit I believe. The article is too sparse and incomplete so I want to do a major rewrite, expect a lot of stuff moving around and having no cites for some paragraphs for short periods. Wayne (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jainism Questions

Hello, since I'm doing a school essay thing on Jainism, and you seem to be a Jain (atleast according to your userbox), I'd like to ask if you could answer some questions about Jainism, which i wonder about and which weren't in the article, so if you'd like answer em, here are the questions: (in all questions "you" = you as in "all Jains")

1. If i get the article right, you believe that the universe was never created, but has always existed, does that mean that you believe the Earth and all animals on it have existed all time, or just the Universe it self, which means that earth and animals etc. have formed due evolution etc.
2. It seems like you are not allowed to kill plans or animals for food, i would like to know how far this goes, ive heard it goes as far as you not eating carrots etc, is that true? Does killing a plant include a part of it, i.e. are you allowed to pick an apple while not killing the tree? Also, if someone else would kill an animal for you to eat, would that be OK?

Follow up: If you are not allowed to pick apples, or kill animals, and are not allowed to accept killed food so to say, what do you eat?

1. Is being homosexual accepted within Jainism? (i know, seems simple, but wasn't in the article)
2. What do you think is the most important thing in Jainism?

I'd be really nice if you could answer most of them, since having an inside look of the whole thing is always good ;)

Thanks! Yzmo 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many degrees of Jainism and I'm rather liberal and have a western viewpoint rather than the traditional eastern one. This means I follow the Jainism faith much as a Christian follows the teachings of their faith. In other words I "break" some rules just as Christians break some of the ten commandments however the main difference is that I suffer more for breaking them and try much harder not too. Jains also are not dismissive of other religions. It may be a hard concept to understand but we believe all religions are valid because their aims are basically similar to ours though the path and beliefs to get there are different. Gods are only role models for us not beings to be worshiped.

1. The Universe existing always is compatable with current science. The Universe can for instance be born in a "Big Bang" die then be reborn in another Big Bang. Evolution also is compatable with humanity progessing from it's worst to it's best in cycles. Who is to say what is meant by worst? We are definately better than humanity was thousands of years ago.
2. Monks are very strict about what they eat and only eat milk, fruit and nuts. The rest of us should be vegetarians to some degree. This is tied to not hurting living things. For example eating a carrot requires you to kill the plant so you shouldn't do that. People that are sick are exempted. Self defense allows limited exemptions for hurting or killing as well. This area is where I fail the most. You are expected to comply as much as you are able so there is some leeway. If you are not a strict vegetarian then you are punished by bad Karma. Very strict Jains are called Digambaras and go to the extreme of not wearing clothing as it requires you to hurt a plant to get the material. I believe they only eat food that a plant has dropped but are not a very large group and you would not see them except in India. Monks often wear nets over their mouths so as not to inhale insects and will strain water to remove even microscopic life. As for myself, I live in a normal house in a capital city of Australia. I will not remove a spiderweb if it has a spider in it. I wont kill ants if they enter the house. I catch mice by offering a box with food, closing the lid when they enter and then free them outside. I will go to extremes to avoid stepping on insects. Mowing the lawn bothers me and if the grass gets too long I will cut it with shears instead of using a mower in case there are insects or lizards etc in it. But I am still not really as strict as I should be.
3. Homosexuality is discouraged but acceptable as long as it hurts no one. In fact no type of sex is actually prohibited but it results in bad Karma as any sex does if used for any reason other than procreation so homosexuality is on the same level as sleeping with your girlfriend before marriage. Most Jains accept some bad karma for it but the ideal is that as you progress spititually you have less sex and eventually none (when you reach the highest stage).
4. Karma is very important to me (I love "My name is Earl") but most important are the five principles or "Great Vows" which I follow closely.
   Ahimsa:Non violence. This means in thought, actions and even verbal against human, animal, or vegetable. You get bad Karma which affects your future life.
   Satya:Means you can't lie for any reason. If telling the truth will hurt someone then you can try to avoid it without actually lying. This often causes me trouble. People know when I go silent that I'm not replying because i can't lie. I get pulled over by the police and I admit everything lol.
   Asteya:No stealing. Self explanatory.
   Brahma-charya:Monogamy. Faithful to your partner.
   Aparigraha:Only have what you need.If you don't need something don't buy it. If you only need a $20,000 car for your family you don't buy a Rolls Royce even if you can afford it. You don't buy a second house for an investment etc. I have three TV's, one for my kids, one for me and another in the room with my computor. When my youngest moves out he will take one as I will no longer need it. Again there is leeway. Rule of thumb is "do you need it?". If a charity calls I look in my wallet and work out what I need to buy for the week then give what is left.
   This is only a quick reply but I hope this is of some help to you. Wayne (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, this is very useful, thanks =) --Yzmo 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One last question

I hope i'm not bugging you to much but since you talked so much about Karma, and it getting better or worse, what are the consequences of getting a bad Karma? I couldnt really find a good answer to that in the article, atleast none i could understand. Thanks again ;) --Yzmo 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Karma is a very difficult concept to explain. Most people think Karma is just an insubstantial "do good and good will happen to you" thing but it actually has a physical existence according to strict Jain teaching.
A soul is created "pure" and Karma "contaminates" it. There are two types of Karma. Physical Karma are invisible (very small) particles of actual matter that combine with your soul according to your actions while abstract Karma are the thoughts and feelings you experience from your actions. Karma prevents what the west would call "sainthood". It doesn't actually physically hurt you as its effect is in making it harder for you to be liberated (or good) rather than making things happen or not happen to you. The first step towards shedding Karma is when you understand that all pleasure and pain you experience are the results of your own actions. Sounds simple but who has not blamed others for their problems? This is where the "do good and good will happen to you" concept comes in, if you are good it is more likely good will happen rather than good WILL happen which is really common sense rather than a set in stone cause and effect. Once a person has reached the highest level of "good" they no longer have any Karma and can no longer attract it. Although it sounds like all Karma is bad, there is really no good or bad, it just is. A soul normally attracts Karma by your actions whether they be bad or nuetral and even by doing nothing at all. Right actions not only do not attract Karma but can negate some of what you have (so "good Karma" is the negation of Karma not a real thing). This is linked to the cycles of rebirth as these will end only when you no longer have Karma. I suppose it is similar to the Christian belief of going to heaven. For Jains only saints will go. The rest of us must wait until we can become saints, which is why Jains are so extreme in their practice of not hurting living things. Each person is responsible for their own Karma or in other words God/Gods if they exist do not "interfere" with anything we do (although they might listen and comfort us, they do not answer prayers or make things happen because that will interfere with our free will and slow the process of reaching "sainthood"). Karma has 4 stages. The first is a normal everyday person who attracts Karma. The second is the loss and negation of some Karma. This is reached by right thoughts and actions. The third stage is when most Karma is gone and the fourth when it is all gone. These two are the stages that need a lot of effort and involve discipline and austerity. Don't forget that this is my interpretation. For example Christians interpret their faith similarly, one may see some things a little differently than the one sitting next to them in church. Wayne (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.. this is very much appreciated =) --Yzmo 14:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

khazars

Thanks a lot! It's important to know that I'm not alone in seeing some of many POV problems with article (I noticed on the Talk page that past "edit wars" on this article have made it to external media organizations! The History page is indeed impressive!) Your modification is fine. I only added a qualifier to the sentence in the main body of the article because I did a thorough research on the issue and I didn't find any other evidence to support the precise claim (i.e. that Jews fled to Khazaria as a result of Byz. persecution) apart from the one cited. In scholarly work that amount of evidence does not warrant certainty (More generally, in scholarly work it's better to err on the side of hesitation rather than too much certainty.) Also, listing all these names of specific emperors and then adding "and other emperors" seems like trying too hard to make a point. One of the two options (specific names or something like "several emperors") is enough. As a user of Wikip. I appreciate that you took the time to check the sources. Schlcoh (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I agree with you that the wording should stay the same but I let the last edit pass as a compromise aiming at breaking the impasse. I thought that the current version at least carries accross the information that we don't know very much about Jewish-Byzantine relations. On the other hand, the important and undisputed fact that Byzantium simply did not experience the anti-semitic horrors common in the West at the time is lost in this way, so you may be right to insist. Schlcoh (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't know if you've followed the latest on the Khazars article but it turns out that my willingness to make concessions to reach a compromise failed miserably. I think Briangotts et.al. saw that as a sign of weakness and only tried more aggressively to push through their POV. So, the question is where we go from here. Arguing on a rational level with them has proved to be totally useless. A general and quite discussion is simply labeled "red herring" (see Talk)! Given that I'd hate to reduce myself to an exchange of insults, the temptation to simply give up is very strong. On the other hand, I think it's unethical to give in to fanaticism. Any suggestions? Thanks! Schlcoh (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Very helpful. Unfortunately, a new editor started reverting again. I suggested to the editor that seemed more reasonable to restore the yesterday version, but there has been no response. So, I think we have no other option but to ask for WP Arbitration. Schlcoh (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Here's how it's done.

Step 1: Explain your position, and see if someone apologises anyway.

Step 2: Explain that you think you were misunderstood / wronged, and see if they apologise.

Step 3: If they don't apologise, ask for an apology

Step 4: If they refuse, shrug your shoulders and wander off. You can't force one, and there's no point trying because all you'll do is make them dig their heels in. A forced apology is no apology anyway.

Hope this helps, Guy (Help!) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Medcab 9/11 statement

I felt it was necessary to remove your comment after the acceptance. I wouldn't normally do this, but two editors had taken issue with it. I don't know if this was the right thing; personally, I think that there is too much heat with this topic. There are trouts to hit me with if you think this was wrong. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have the statement archived, along with my reply to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a link for the State Department article? Thx  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here tis . Wayne (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

this is also interesting for me. Do you have the rejection text?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear WLRoss,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)