User talk:T. Anthony/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paper Doll Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hello, I just want to let you know that I agree with you regarding the notability of the song "Paper Doll". Therefore, as a editor I removed the speedy deletion tag. I told the editor who made the request that if she has any concerns to why I did it that she can contact me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mystify85JEC (talk • contribs) 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. It's not actually a song I'm familiar with, but I saw it in several articles and a notice board so decided to start the article. Well that and I'm on a kick of trying to increase articles involving culture of the 1930s and 1940s. The only article on God Bless the Child being about the Shania Twain song, before I made the article on the Billie Holiday song, partly inspired that.--T. Anthony 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD[edit]

I was quite confused by your comments on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9#Palestinian territories. For one, I made mention twice about how confusion on the previous mass-renaming lead me to relist individual groups. More than that, I was puzzled by why it "usually just [causing] an argument" should be a reason to oppose - shouldn't you support or oppose on the basis of your argument ? Anyways, I just wanted to make sure that you had read the comments and such, as there is no reason this move should even be controversial since it is merely bringing the categories' naming into line with the convention already employed in articlespace. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I did misunderstand. I'll withdraw, but I doubt you'll get the desired result anyway. I don't think it was just the bloc nature or anything that caused a lack of concensus. It's a contentious region of the world even on the issue of just what to call it. That likely means perpetual "no concensus" votes and little movement. Still, perhaps I'll be wrong. (I'm skeptical for now, but anything's possible) As for my own position I'm not sure I really like "Palestinian territories" as I think it implies something that's no longer entirely accurate, namely that they're a subdivision in the way the Kashmir or Gibraltar are subdivisions. I'm not sure that entirely works. The situation they're in is under dispute and confusing. Still I withdrew anyway as I don't know enough about it, I took about 2 years of classes relating to it but colleges are so biased on the issue I distrust what I learned there, so shouldn't have voted.--T. Anthony 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being open-minded. In this case, the renaming was actually agreed upon by level-headed editors from both 'sides'. If you have any questions about the topic in general, I would be glad to present my perspective. Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock On! I'm Giving you a Barnstar[edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your countless contributions of music-related articles to Wikipedia!! Rock on! Mystify85JEC 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I got into music articles because they're so much more peaceful than religion-related articles, which is what I started with back when.--T. Anthony 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actors for future categories (maybe)[edit]

C: Willie Aames, Chad Allen (actor), Alan Autry, Dick Beals, Earl Boen, Corey Burton, Candace Cameron, Kirk Cameron, June Carter Cash, Kristin Chenoweth, Townsend Coleman, Henry Ian Cusick, Clifton Davis, Robert Duvall, Dale Evans, Clarence Gilyard, Andy Griffith, Ron Hamilton, Charlton Heston, Brad Johnson (actor), Dean Jones (actor), Diane-Louise Jordan, Rob Lacey, Gavin MacLeod, Norma MacMillan, Nick Mancuso, Mike Nawrocki, Chelsea Noble, Chuck Norris, Della Reese, Richard Rossi, Hal Smith (actor), David Suchet, Mr. T, Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Dick Van Dyke, Phil Vischer, Lisa Whelchel, Demond Wilson, Yuri (Mexican)

LDS: Corbin Allred, Larry Bagby, Michael Ballam, Kathleen Beller, Wilford Brimley, Richard Dutcher, Marcus Gilbert, Jon Heder, Kirby Heyborne, Maren Ord, Alexander Polinsky, Aaron Ruell,

H: Mani Damodara Chakyar, Mani Madhava Chakyar, Arun Govil, Deepika Chikhalia, Sunil Lahiri, Arvind Trivedi, Vijay Arora, Sameer Rajda, Lalita Pawar, Mukesh Khanna, Nitish Bharadwaj, Raj Babbar, Paintal (comedian),

S: Hardeep Singh Kohli, Mangal Dhillon, Parminder Nagra, Sody Singh Kahlon,

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12

CfDs, etc.[edit]

I get the sense I'm just not good at them. My lame attempts at retooling "Category:Scientists by religion" is likely just going to get them all deleted. Although I think that was on the horizon anyway. I think my views of what Wikipedia religious deals can or should be is so radically off from others, on any side, here that I should go back to avoiding any article remotely relating to the topic. Anywho an ice storm is expected to kill power here so I did article creations from my list tonight in case the power is gone tomorrow. I will hopefully see y'all later.--T. Anthony 12:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Victor von Pentz[edit]

I've nominated the article Victor von Pentz for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Victor von Pentz satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor von Pentz. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Victor von Pentz during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —Psychonaut 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was like a year ago. I'd forgotten all about him, I think I just created the article because I like the name Linus. (Peanuts deal I guess) Well that and he was on some anti-pope list or something. Anyway it's nice of you to inform me. Much of the time things I created get deleted without any warning.--T. Anthony 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous tall women[edit]

I "undid" your revision of 13:27, 15 January 2007 for the article List of famous tall women but the edit summary is misleading. It looks like I was reverting a vandal which I realized after I had already submitted it. Sorry about that. ... discospinster talk 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, don't worry about it.--T. Anthony 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

identity intersection categories[edit]

Hi T. Anthony - you have my sympathy for the work you've been trying to do on the various religious identity/intersection categories. I was particularly struck by one of your comments pointing out that mathematicians are not merely tools for doing math, they are people; religion is an important aspect of their identity. I've been coming around to the position myself that identity subcategories (ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexuality) perhaps ought to be considered per se acceptable (redundant) subcategorizations, along with nationality, but that they ought not be exclusive sub-categorizations--in other words, people can be deleted from occupation or nationality and placed into occupationXnationality; but they shouldn't be deleted from occupation and placed into identityXoccupation; they should be placed in both. ... I do sympathize with people who want to avoid category-cruft and are concerned about propagating all sorts of identities -- it's true, that all kinds of other things could be as important or more important to the individual categorized than ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality. But these are major identity categories that many people use and identify with, or identify others with. .... I'd like to raise it at categorization of people, but I think it wouldn't achieve consensus, because a lot of people seem to be of a very different opinion so I'm going to refrain at this point. I guess I was curious what you were thinking about doing, after the lengthy & frustrating CFDs on the issue ... ? --lquilter 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have a solid position. Still I think that religion is even significant in the careers of many, but not all, people including scientists. You see people like Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Russell Stannard, or Richard Dawkins and it certainly seems like their position on religion is relevant. They wouldn't do studies on the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, among scientists if it were totally unimportant. You don't see studies of that kind concerning pilots or chefs. The other issue is that I feel there is a double-standard. It seems like religious identity is seen as more objectionable than any other kind of identity or personal choice, except maybe politics. That might relate to Wikipedia tending to do badly with religion or politics as they create fights. Still it doesn't make much sense on its own. You can categorize suicides by all kinds of professions. See Category:Suicides and you'll even see a subcategory for Chefs. You can categorize LGBT people by many occupations or Asian Americans by numerous occupations. Yet religion is seen as unacceptable. I don't get it.--T. Anthony 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of Thalía[edit]

I re-did your edit of Thalía. She is a well known Catholic. Please do not remove valid links. Thanks, Ronbo76 03:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. The article didn't say anything though and the category may be deleted.--T. Anthony 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on Alicia Villarreal. If the category gets deleted, a bot edits out the category. Pre-deletion is not a reason to do the work of a future consideration .Please revert this edit. Both are on my Watchlist. Thanks, Ronbo76 03:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again sorry and I did undo it.--T. Anthony 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To some people, this might appear to be anti-Catholic or anti-religious. I believe your intent was and is honest: you have seen a proposal on a category being considered for deletion. Chances are this category would be renamed as it emcompasses a major religion and would impact many articles like Bob Hope who is also on my Watchlist. Let the proposal go through; then see what the recommendations are; and, then let the bot do it thing. Ronbo76 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more careful next time, I'll leave it at that.--T. Anthony 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you redid Maria Conchita Alonso. A lot of the Latin pop stars are on my Watchlist. I missed that edit as well as Celia Cruz. Ronbo76 03:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall what I was thinking their as I think I added her back when.--T. Anthony 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reversal shows up later than the others (about 16 minutes later). I would reverse all which it appears you are doing. Ronbo76 03:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last was a bit rude. My mind was a bit scattered. Anyway I did screw up and I thank you for fixing it. I looked through and put back all the ones that I even thought I remembered hearing were Catholic. I may not have put back all the names I removed, but I hopefully did enough. You can look at my "user contributions" deal to see if there's any you want back that I removed due to fear they made the category look silly.--T. Anthony 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of WP:CIVIL, it was not and reflects back to something you said earlier. Ronbo76 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case there's confusion I meant that I feared my one post, where I basically brushed you off and said adios, was rude. I'm sorry if I got snotty with you.--T. Anthony 04:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too apologize if you took any of my comments as being mean-spirited. It is big of you to admit what you did and I acknowledge you and your contributions. Thanks, Ronbo76 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem. I was feeling guilty that the category got placed on CfD. I put Category:Roman Catholics musicians, with an "s" after Catholic, on CfD just because it was redundant and seemed to be misspelled. That's what led to Category:Roman Catholic musicians being put on CfD and that made me feel bad. I thought maybe if I got super-strict I'd win people over, but sometimes I overreact and get silly. I should really be grateful you caught it, but I was worried for a second you were thinking I was being anti-Catholic or something. (As my page shows I am Catholic. I even dreamed of being a monk for awhile, but admittedly that might make me overly strict or something)--T. Anthony 04:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did check out your userpage before my first comment. That was how I knew you were not anti-religious. I am very analytical, sometimes too quick for others because I intuit what others will take minutes to discern. Being a monk would be hard work depending on the order you chose. That's why I admire people like Bing Crosby or Danny Thomas who were very open with their faith. You would see that too in a lot of the Latin pop stars if you follow their careers as Mexico is still overly Catholic. They almost fight to sing Las Mañanitas to La Virgen with Judith Grace González on December 12 midnight. Kind of funny but Judith Grace does not have the tag even though she is Catholic. Thalía has been a singer on that program and was married (as per our Wiki article) in a NY cathedral shown on Univision. Cheers, Ronbo76 05:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see. I might have messed up and thought people were just placing anyone who's Mexican as Catholic without knowing for certain whether they are or not. (There is a Pentecostal and Mormon minority in Mexico) That'd be strange, but not totally impossible. You live you learn, thanks.--T. Anthony 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more Catholic without a tag (although I don't know if he still a practicing Catholic)? Tony Plana, Loyola Marymount University grad and maybe even the "Skipper"'s little buddy, Bob Denver. Once the Jesuits hook ya, you are hooked for life.
Not sure it always works considering Voltaire I think had a Jesuit education, but still I added Plana to the entertainers one.--T. Anthony 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cutoff on tall men[edit]

I see that you're interested in the cutoff point on that article, so could you please comment at Talk:List of very tall men#Start with 6' 5"? — coelacan talk — 21:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category nominations[edit]

Please look at the following:

As you can see from these examples, I do not target Roman Catholics, I do not always vote for deletion, and I am not even trying to destroy all categories on Christianity. I am merely trying to clean up some of these religion categories. I am deeply hurt by your accusations. Dr. Submillimeter 00:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an accusation, it was more like a question. You answered it, I withdraw. I'm sorry if I've been testy the last few days.--T. Anthony 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After accusations of being disruptive, I withdrew the nomination for the deletion of Category:Roman Catholic musicians. I am deeply hurt by the way some people have treated me, but I suppose I should have expected it. I will probably go work on something else in Wikipedia for a while. Dr. Submillimeter 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well again I'm sorry if I overreacted it. We were on different sides, and you did a few things I found odd, but no hard feelings I hope.--T. Anthony 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia[edit]

It looks like the deletion police are trying to circumvent a previous AFD again. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. As you voted keep, could you cast your vote again? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you seem to have me confused for someone else. I voted deleted on that list, see the 09:24, 23 August 2006 post on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. I do tend to vote keep on lists, but not always. As I recall this one struck me as too self-referential. I hope there's no hard feelings.--T. Anthony 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not related to anything, but I've been wondering what does "Ta bu shi da yu" mean? I don't see any marks for tones and I only speak a little bit of Chinese anyway. I was guessing something like He/She/It is not...then I'm clueless.--T. Anthony 01:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving, etc.[edit]

I did a bunch of archiving, I maybe overdid it. I still hope to be less active, but I never do well at that hope. Still I'll up the date and work on not coming back until Thursday.

The AfD/CfD process is still kind of annoying me at times. I try to focus in on jazz musicians and science fiction writers, but that gets monotonous at times. One of my main interests is history, but you need some place respectable to really do something on that. Besides that history writing is different than writing articles for even a credible encyclopedia so writing history articles here would maybe screw me up. Hopefully I'll be published in the field soon and avoid any further temptation to do Wiki articles on anything other than niche interests. (Jazz, science fiction, old songs, obscure women scientists, etc) I've not slept much in the last 22 hours so this might be incoherent or snarky.--T. Anthony 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional left-handed characters‎[edit]

You've added an AfD notice, but it points to an old and closed discussion, so I assume that you haven't followed through with the proposal. If you've decided not to go on with it, could you remove the template from the article? If you want to go on, you need to modify the template, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know how to make it point to the right thing. I Afd'd it the same way I always did in the past and later I put it on the AfD page manually. What gives?--T. Anthony 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed it up. Where an article has previously been nominated, you need to use {{afdx}} instead of {{afd}} on top of the article. Sam Blacketer 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to remember that, thanks.--T. Anthony 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that it's been sorted out. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on tall men list[edit]

I have to say I am very disappointed that the list of tall men is up for deletion AGAIN! I feel that some users have put a lot of effort into finding proper sources and adding them. However trivial the list may be wikipedia should accomodate for all interests.

I don't know what world some people are living in but if a 6 ft 4 inch man walks down the street in any country in the world he is WAY! above average height and will be noticeable to anybody. The way I see it is 5ft 8-9 average height overall 5ft 9- 6ft very common 6ft-6ft3 tall 6ft 4- 6ft 6 very tall 6ft 6 + giant!

For instance Dolph Lundgren. He is about 6'5 I think can anybody really say he isn't big and shouldn't go on a list of famous tall people?! He is well known for being huge -I thought the list was for this who are as famous for being an actor or whatver as being huge. Also Clint Eastwood, have you seen him in the westerns He looks massive probably 6'5 with soled cowboy boots. He also is well known for being very tall.

The list should be returned to before as it is now I hate it. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. I can put back the old names. The only reason I'm not reverting yet is because 1: No one else has responded like this and 2: The older version doesn't use the footnoting system, which is generally considered better. I like the list as was, but I thought a bit of effort would help save it. Maybe I went too far, but please don't make me the enemy here.--T. Anthony 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put them back, the list is once again on length warming. I think the 201 cm cutoff is worth discussing, but I was wrong to impose it. Apologies.--T. Anthony 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is much better now thanks. I agree that anything over 6ft 4 inches anywhere in the world is tall and medical statistics also reflect this. I suggest that the list is turned into a more encylopedic article with paragraphs covering human height extremes and discussing the people more on the list. If it was written into a full article with professional resources related to extreme height with the lists then it might gain more respect and stop it being tagged Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you could write into the intro to the article that governmental planning and health documents in the Ubited Kindom and the United States regard 6ft 4 inches as the boundary with 0.?% of the average world population only above this or whatever sourced with respected sources from World Health Org or somwething it wqould stop it being seen a subjective. Hey also sorry I sounded a bit harsh with my comments! Unintentional. All the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might've been oversensitive as I was ill. I got some intestinal bug and hadn't slept much. I got much more sleep today, but still feel a bit off. I'll see about doing something with the intro later in the day if I get to feeling better. However you don't need to depend on me as the list has many interested parties who can work on things like that.--T. Anthony 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stuff[edit]

272 cm (8 ft 11.1 in)

268 cm (8 ft 9 in)

253 cm (8 ft 4 in)

249 cm (8 ft 2 in)

248 cm (8 ft 1 ¾ in)

246 cm (8 ft ¾ in)

245 cm (8 ft ½ in)

242 cm ( 7 ft 11½ in)

  • Sultan Kosen — tallest living basketball player. (from Turkey)

241 cm (7 ft 11 in)

240 cm (7 ft 10½ inches)

236 cm (7 ft 9 in)

  • Hussain Bisad — Britain's current tallest man
  • William Bradley — tallest recorded English person (born 1787; died 1820)
  • Angus MacAskill — tallest recorded Scottish person (born 1825; died 1863)
  • Bao Xishun — tallest living person recognised by Guinness, since January 15, 2005 (born 1951)
  • Ri Myung Hun — North Korean player, made failed attempt to join the NBA in the late 1990s

235.8 cm (7 ft 8.9 in)

  • Radhouane Charbib — Tunisian who was counted as the tallest living man before Bao Xishun.

235 cm (7 ft 8 ¾ in)

234 cm (7 ft 8 in)

232 cm (7 ft 7½in)

231 cm (7 ft 7 in)

  • Manute Bol — Sudanese born player and activist
  • Lock Martin — actor, his height played a crucial role in him getting the part of Gort in The Day the Earth Stood Still. (1916-1959)
  • Gheorghe Mureşan — Romanian born player, also an actor

230 cm (7 ft 6 ¼ in)

229 cm (7 ft 6 in)

Aargh[edit]

I meant to be off the day and I hope to cut back. I got some encouraging news from a history prof and I need to get to work on my career. Maybe I'm more irritable today as I know I should be doing other things instead.--T. Anthony 10:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh part deux[edit]

Illness, annoyance, and other things. Just felt like saying aargh. Oh well I'm going to the doctor today and I think maybe I'm a bit "over" this place. Maybe once I get this cough treated I can get to the real work I need for my career.--T. Anthony 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for List of tall men[edit]

I intend to propose List of tall men for deletion review. However, in light of the extent of your participation in the AfD discussion and your discussion with the closing admin, I wanted to first present my rationale for the DRV to you (and to User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back) for comment so that it has the best chance of succeeding at DRV. Thanks, Black Falcon 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted even though no consensus was reached. 17 users supported deletion (one of which was simply "per nom", but was not discounted) and 17 voted to keep the article (a few of the "keep" votes were discounted by the closing administrator). Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus.

The administrator's justification for the decision is that:

The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion - that the list is subjective and there is no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means.

However, a number of users directly addressed and refuted the chief reason for deletion--the "subjectivity" of the term tall. See, for instance, the comment by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back against a "fruitless semantic exercise":

NOR applies to "new definitions of pre-existing terms;" it does not preclude the variable, reasonable interpretation of very common adjectives.

The criticism of the subjectivity of the term "tall" blurs the distinction between a criterion that is subjective and one that has alternatives. Notability could, in theory, have any number of possible (and plausible) definitions, but WP:Notability is an objective criterion. Likewise, the term tall could have varying interpretations, but it can also be an objective criterion (reached through consensus and verified by external sources).

At the least, the article should be restored so that it could be renamed to List of the tallest men, which could list the tallest men ever, in specific countries/regions, at particular times in history, etc. (this is really a matter for that article’s talk page).

Thanks for informing me. I'm not sure I have much more to say at this moment, but I might comment later.--T. Anthony 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only just heard, great shame this, you did a lot of great work at the end there, and used good rationales to keep it. If governments and governmental agencies aren't the ultimate enforcement of criteria...then what are??? Makes me think that this was a witch hunt!;o)Halbared 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Many Wikipedians just hate lists in general, but there are also seems to be this intense kind of literalism among many of them. (As in parameters have to be extremely exact at all times, in all cases, even if that level of exactness doesn't correspond to anything else in reality) I think that's why many lists and things have very contorted titles. If you don't explain exactly what you mean in detail any ambiguity upsets a certain segment. Maybe it comes from an overabundance of mathematicians or being founded by an Objectivist. I'm not real satisfied with that theory, most mathematicians aren't quite like that, but it's just a theory. Anyway I eventually got tired of dealing with it so I still hope to avoid the place.--T. Anthony 01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch & Italian[edit]

nl:Lijst van beroemde lange mannen it:Elenco degli uomini più alti del mondo

Oh yeah life goes on[edit]

The last few days have been helpful in returning me to a correct perspective and for that I'm kind of grateful. My interest in this place is again waning, which is a good thing. Maybe I can get my offline life more together now that my interest is ebbing. I don't know why I ever got addicted to this in the first place to be honest. It's embarrassing to me that my family found out how much I edit here, especially as they acted like it's something to be proud of. It's really more an embarrassment, almost a humiliation. This is a place I've always thought was deeply flawed in both concept and actual practice. It's like an enormous garage sale of information with most items being discarded by teenage boys. That doesn't relate to current issues, but I usually find myself wondering why I'm doing what I do as most anything I create is not of interest to anyone. My interests are at odds from regular people to some degree, but they very much never fit the interests of 16-25 year old men. Oh well nuff whining and reediting, see this place later. (Much much later I hope)--T. Anthony 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite and possibly due to its inherent (and necessary?) flaws, Wikipedia has a bunch of practical benefits, which you probably appreciate as well. Personally it would be more humiliating if I only focused on the nitpicking aspects (such as AfDs, copyediting, and reverting vandalism) than contributing real information. The cliche argument could be run through that quirky interests highlight our uniqueness, and even if no one else finds any value in your articles, at least you are satisfied by the process. The worthiness of your interests only becomes an issue when you begin to doubt whether they have any effect on others, when you place this emphasis a lot more heavily on others than you do on yourself. I am not saying that we should be egoists, but neither can we be complete altruists, so we should be satisfied being somewhere in the middle. If writing (notable) special-interest articles is an intellectually stimulating activity, then why does it matter that only 0.000001% of the population enjoy it? I would bet that this comes up as a dilemma at some point for all specialists, with possibly everyone being a specialist in some area. But there is so much shit in the world to focus on that focusing on one tiny thing is not significantly better than focusing on any other. Okay, it may be morally better to focus on humanitarian causes, but there is a reason not everyone is a humanitarian, and this goes for any other subject. The addiction itself is a more psychological factor that must be overcome personally. FYI I came here to see whether there will be any action to appeal the list of tall men DRV. Pomte 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed that everybody's work on the list was wiped out. If what is tall is such a major issue why not just change it to List of famous men over 2 metres? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What irritated me more there was that I do not see how there was a concensus to delete. It seemed like the only way such a concensus could be seen is to dismiss every keep opinion because "no valid opinion could have gone keep." If that were the case the issue shouldn't have been discussed in the first place. Because if it's so clearcut that a "keep" opinion can not be valid then it should've just been placed on speedy delete and not caused so much wasted time on AfD. However it is on DRV right now so that's some consolation. Also I had other annoyances besides that, some of which were more significant to me, and I do think spending so much time here is bad for my career.--T. Anthony 11:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

identity intersection cats?[edit]

Hi T. Anthony -- I confess I was surprised to see you proposing for deletion some identity intersection categories, since I had thought that you were, like me, more on the inclusionist side for some particular identities. Is this an effort to make a point of some sort, regarding the religious identity intersections? Or has your thinking changed? ... Obviously anything relevant to the specific discussion(s) should go there; but I wouldn't mind talking about the issues with other people who have a strong interest in and done a lot of thinking about identity intersection categories. --lquilter 19:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point making largely, Although a sense of consistency is part of it too. If the rule now is that scientists/actors aren't supposed to be intersected with non-career issues than it seems like their sexuality or race should also be verboten. If sexuality or race is okay and religion not I'd be curious as an answer as to why. Still the point-making aspect might get me temporarily banned, something that's never happened to me before as usually I leave voluntarily when I leave, but being banned is not particularly of concern to me. If anything it might be beneficial. I'm a bit OCD so end up checking this place even though I intended to quit on it.--T. Anthony 23:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten quite addicted too. ... My sense is there is no "rule" about what should happen; the guidelines are mushy and not really very smart, which is why we keep having these problems. ... The identity intersections seem to get approached a few different ways:
  • "Baptist scientist" means the scientist practices Muslim science. (Usually followed with "there's no such thing, so delete".) That's obviously an absurd take on the issue, and in fact confuses the subject with the identity. I've started trying to make that point explicitly. But for instance, those religious actors & religious singers cleared up nicely once we established that we were talking about performers in particular types of religious media. In fairness this point is confused in the Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, too; the example puts LGBT literature and LGBT writers together, which is silly.
  • "Baptist scientist" means their Baptist faith significantly impacted their science.' -- as in, they were inspired by their faith to do science, or they took a Baptist perspective on science.
  • "Baptist scientist" means their Baptist faith significantly impacted their scientific career.' -- as in suffered persecution for being a Baptist by for instance not being hired by a Catholic research institution.
  • Baptist scientist" simply means in the intersection of scientists who are Baptists. -- the broadest use of identity intersection categories.
Of the identities I do think that each has its own issues & reasons. Gender and race dynamics have shifted a lot in this country over the last decades, so some fields now have very different gender or ethnic make-ups than they did years ago. ... Religion is distinct, too; a lot of people will be a member of a religion without having it be a strong part of their identity; whereas, race, gender, sexuality are almost always defining identities. Nationality, for that matter, is not necessarily a key identity in all cases, but we seem to accept it for practical purposes. Occupation is hard because although it's often a defining identity it's so freakin' vague and transient over an individual's lifetime. All sorts of other attributes can be defining identities, too -- disability, regional affiliation, religious faith, etc.; all of these can be defining attributes for some people and not others. The problem is that creating such categories encourages casual editors to be inclusionist, and put them on even if they're not "defining attributes".
Hmm. Well, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on it; esp regarding religion, political beliefs/philosophies, and other identity categories. --lquilter 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sexuality is the main one where I'm not sure why it'd matter more. I guess the idea is that sexual orientation, unlike religion, can't be changed. That's why Jewish scientists are also treated differently as a person remains Jewish even if they abandon Judaism. (The same could essentially be said of the Parsis, but there aren't enough Parsi scientists to make that relevant) Still many things are unchanging, but not seen as relevant for categorization. I think I mentioned color blindness, which could be relevant in certain sciences, but I don't necessarily want a category for color blindness scientists. It might also be that sexuality is seen as more significant, but I think that can be debated. There have been several scientists whose homosexuality did not become relevant in their career because they kept quiet about it or because they may have lived in a culture where it was not as big a deal as in the post-Hellenic West. Race is admittedly a bit different in that it's, usually, physically obvious. In segregated times a black scientist could "act white" and not talk about being black, but would still have faced discrimination.--T. Anthony 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much that it can't be changed (there are big political arguments about that, of course, which only hinders getting to the truth...) but that it is, for better or worse, a major facet of people's identities: Pretty much everyone defines themselves in large part as someone who sleeps with / is attracted to boys, girls, both, or neither. Of course, not everyone thinks about it all the time; but it's a critical identity category on pretty much every metric: it defines major life choices, other people see you in terms of this characteristic, if you mislabel someone they feel affronted. Religion is not an identifer for all people on all of these axes, although it probably affects most people on at least one axis, and some people on all. ... Sexuality, regardless, ends up being a big deal in careers, although I think this is understudied: But reading through biographies of scientists, and talking to scientists today, it is absolutely apparent that many of them see being married to another scientist as critical to their career; and obviously back in the day having a wife made it much, much easier for male scientists to get by. (Actually, even today, recent studies have shown that being a female scientist is harder than being a male scientist, in significant part b/c the female scientist has to deal with household/kids.) ... Anyway, this is all a bit of a jumble. The important thing I think is that these discussions ought to be happening before people start eliminating categories, religion, sexuality, gender, whatever. <sigh>. --lquilter 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting. For example one of my favorite professors was an older Episcopalian woman who was politically liberal and had been a single mother. Her status as a single mother is why she never got her doctorate, but her religion/politics effected some of her historical interests I think. Although this would seem to indicate marital status should also be germane and I have a feeling categorizing scientists as married or unmarried will not be acceptable. Who knows, it might be too much for me to figure out.--T. Anthony 07:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's tricky. Just because something is important in someone's life doesn't necessarily mean it's good as part of the categorization structure -- it still might be very useful in another organizational scheme, like navboxes, lists, or articles about the topic. It's a balancing act. I think marital status would be hard to do, because almost everyone has a marital status and it's influential in their lives, but they change marital status over the course of their lives; on the other hand it can be an identifying feature. ... On the other hand, it's a bit hard to distinguish b/w sexual orientation/preference/sexuality, and marital status; and of course they significantly overlap. I think there's a distinction, but I don't think I've articulated it yet. .... I certainly don't think it's too much for you or any of us to figure out! Talking it through with other folks with different opinions is helping me move from vague gut instincts on particular matters to reasoned positions, or sometimes to change my mind, so for me, this kind of discussion is very helpful. Thanks. --lquilter 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain ...[edit]

Hi, The message I wrote on the DRV page was directed to Coelacan, who repeatedly writes that all those who disagree with the delete vote do is "yell keep". It was not addressed to you--my sincerest apologies for the confusion. I have noted now that I'm explicitly referring to Coelacan. Again, I apologize--I didn't even consider that one might think it simply applied to the post directly above. Black Falcon 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that, when I started rewriting [sic], but I thought maybe I should tone it down anyway. I was asserting there was "no concensus" as if it were a fact when it's something the discussion is intended to determine.--T. Anthony 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Black Falcon 05:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did think you were addressing me at first. I might not have looked at my post to him again if I hadn't.--T. Anthony 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men[edit]

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea a deletion review could be overturned. I've voted, argued, etc so much on this I'm a bit exhausted with it.--T. Anthony 00:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your nominations at WP:CFD[edit]

Note my vote on one of your nominations of scientist-related categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1. Because of the very strong hostility that I encountered in the past from other nominations of categories based on religion, I hesitated to get involved in a similar heated discussion based on ethnicity or sexual orientation. I only voted because I saw that my vote could tilt the nomination towards deletion.

Remember my vote the next time you discuss category issues with me at WP:CFD.

Dr. Submillimeter 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominations were close to a point violation on my part as I don't necessarily want those deleted. However your reasoning was interesting and proper, whatever floats your boat.--T. Anthony 01:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Red[edit]

Various red-linked names I might work on later. Some are because I'm interested in the topic, others are due to an interest in countering any systemic bias. If anyone else wants to work on these be my guest.

This is very useful; I might pitch in if I can find the time. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. This has mostly been just a way for me to focus my article creation on certain areas, but I've always intended it to be open to anyone. Especially if they know these people as in most cases I do not. (In the case of science fiction writers this is a bit less true, I've read some Irvine stories for example) For a time I had some red-linked Pulitzer winners too, but they were surprisingly hard to find information on.--T. Anthony 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I likely will just leave this to you and others. This place has taken up too much of my time as I need to get my career. Also I have largely negative feelings about it so it's always been a bit hypocritical of me to work here.--T. Anthony 02:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles I created in 2007[edit]

Your comment[edit]

I thought your idea valuable and moved that material down into the poetry section. Haiduc 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada[edit]

Hi, thanks for voting to keep the article on their children, but they also put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada on AfD. Think you can help? -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look above, I've basically quit. Also I'm not sure parents of world leaders are as notable.--T. Anthony 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for List of tall men[edit]

Hi,

Guess what! List of tall men has been placed at DRV (here's the link) to reverse the "no consensus" closure of the AfD. This is turning from a "discussion" into a war of attrition. Sorry, just needed a place to vent my frustration. -- Black Falcon 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded, but I probably shouldn't have. I am sincere in quitting Wikipedia and in thinking it's mostly a blight on the Internet. This probably invalidates what I say there, but I only left a comment not a vote or position or whatever you call it.--T. Anthony 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I enjoyed conversing with you over the past few weeks. So I guess best of luck (with quitting), and good luck in general, Black Falcon 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tall women[edit]

I've changed the cut-off height for tall women to 185 cm / six feet 1 inch for reasons explained in the talk page. Having the cut off start at a 1/2 inch increment seems odd to me. Crypticfirefly 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Judaism's view of Jesus[edit]

Hi- saw your comments at talk. I can't speak for the other editor(s) there, but my edits to that article have been aimed a different way- as I mention in a much earlier discussion, maybe a year ago, the entire title of the article is misleading, because Judaism doesn't have any view of Jesus per se, any more than it has a specific view of any other person who did not meet the criteria expected of the Jewish Messiah. (Thus, to say "Judaism's view of Jesus" is misleading- it is rather, Judaism's non-view of Jesus that is the issue. Jesus did not fulfill the Hebrew Bible's expectations of the Messiah and therefore is essentially disregarded by Judaism as historically or religiously important. This is not intended to cause offense, I realize Jesus is vitally important to Christians, but in Judaism's view, Jesus would be the same as Mohammed, Alexander the Great or Buddha or you, except for one major thing- as you point out, the religion founded by/around him.) Regarding the last of these points, because Maimonides and others interpreted such claims of Messianism through the lens of observant Judaism, they may also have lamented what they saw as a potential misleading of people away from the principles of the Torah. Maybe the closest analogy would be Christianity's view of Maimonides, or Christianity's view of Buddha or something - my understanding is it would be something like "there were both irrelevant, unless helping people to see salvation through Jesus. If doing things that distract people from following the true path, then they are actively harmful." So I don't think it's fair to assume some kind of contempt or dislike as much as to recognize that to people living within what they see as a complete system for understanding the world and God, things outside of that (such as Christianity and its founders) are at best not that important, and seen in their worst way, possible "distractions" from the "true" path. Again, no offense is intended, I am trying to defuse what I see as a theological misunderstanding at that Talk page, and I am not an Expert.Kaisershatner 13:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "but in Judaism's view, Jesus would be the same as Mohammed, Alexander the Great or Buddha or you" is sort of what I thought. However "bones ground to dust", etc seems a bit more hostile. The view I got from reading the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia was that, if the gospels are accurate, Jesus was similar to the Essenes except that he claimed more personal authority than them. Also that he may have been delusional, or was at least believed to be so, and that the Messiah can't be executed. (Also uncertainty about Davidic ancestry) I think the problem I've always had with the article is it makes Judaism, especially of Jesus's time, sound more uniform than I think it is in reality. However I'm not Jewish, I don't even have strong friends who are Jewish, so I usually am uncertain how to express that. I fear I end up sounding like I'm on the "Messianic Judaism" groups side, but that's not accurate. I don't see how anything could embrace Jesus as the Messiah, except maybe in an Ebionite form, and still be Judaism. Anyway I did intend to leave this place, but every now and again I feel the urge to say something.--T. Anthony 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, because of you I just had to read the 1906JE article, as well as the wiki on antinomianism, so by hanging around you may have accomplished some micro-marginal good in my education. At least you've got that going for you. :) The 1906JE article linked there, on Christianity, includes this from Maimonides:[1]

"Yad," Melakim, xi. 4: "The teachings of the Nazarene and the Ishmaelite [Mohammed] serve the divine purpose of preparing the way for the Messiah, who is sent to make the whole world perfect by worshiping God with one spirit: for they have spread the words of the Scriptures and the law of truth over the wide globe; and, whatever of errors they adhere to, they will turn toward the full truth at the arrival of the Messianic time." And in his Responsa (No. 58) he declares: "The Christians believe and profess in common with us that the Bible is of divine origin and given through Moses, our teacher; they have it completely written down, though they frequently interpret it differently."

This does appear pretty liberal as compared with some of the things asserted at Talk (I am not disputing them, just haven't read them myself yet), and it's just one man's view (ok, it is Maimonides here, so not just some guy, but still). You are likely already familiar with this, as your knowledge in parts of this area clearly exceeds my own. Take a wikibreak, think about staying. I almost quit last week after three years contributing here, but I think there's still some redeeming value. Kaisershatner 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't know if I'm all that knowledgeable. People online have been shocked when I told them that, in real life, I've only known three Jewish people and none of them seemed to be religiously observant. (I didn't know them well enough to say they were non-observant, but that's the sense I got) As for leaving I've listed myself as a "former Wikipedian" since mid-February. I enjoyed working on Wikipedia, for the most part, but I think the entire concept is basically wrong. Whether this is the intent or not it ends up being "truth by concensus", which I don't really believe in. I also think that the demographics of the place have essentially built up a culture which becomes less attractive the further you are from the core demographic. Meaning I think Wikipedia is primarily young white men and disproportionately atheist/agnostic. So the articles reflect that and I think make the place seem less interesting the further you are from that. It also makes it skewed. I think they call this "systemic bias", but I came to the conclusion countering it is not really possible. At some point it just developped a kind of culture and I don't see anyway to really change the systemic bias without actively recruiting other kinds of people. I think it's unlikely, and maybe even unwise, for that to be tried. Especially as when people arrive who don't fit the demographic they seem to be motivated by a pretty strong agenda. In fairness I had something of an agenda in coming too, I wanted to improve articles on religion, but I don't think that agenda was quite as activist as what I'm meaning. I'm meaning more like people who are really into advocacy for or against something. I think that article largely is attracting those for or against Messianic Judaism and that could be giving it a skewed perspective one way or other. Still I could be mistaken about that.--T. Anthony 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can't believe I'm doing this[edit]

I'll try a bit of activity one more time. However I plan to basically limit myself to starting articles that are already in other language Wikipedias and some editing of things I created.--T. Anthony 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing comments part-way through a discussion[edit]

I found this edit to be particularly confusing. Changing your comments when someone else has already responded is highly inappropriate. You should add to the comments rather than edit them.

Also, in case you wanted to know, I vote for the deletion of that categorized any government jurists based on religion (e.g. Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, Confuscian, Sihk, Shinto, Bahai, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, new age, Zoroastrian, and any other religion that you can think of). Dr. Submillimeter 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It was a bit odd, but I figured going by jurists by religion would be less partisan. I don't necessarily want them deleted, by the way, I just wanted discussion.--T. Anthony 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astronomers by religion[edit]

I nominated Category:Astronomers by religion for deletion. You will see the debate here. I would personally object to being categorized this way; my religious beliefs have never influenced my research. Dr. Submillimeter 09:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quick. However I didn't create the Muslim or Hindu ones they were already there. Decide as you may.--T. Anthony 09:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have nominated Category:Muslim astronomers for deletion a while ago. I thought it was actually being used for Arabic astronomers, but it was not. As for Category:Hindu astronomy, I filtered all the people out of the category. The category now only contains articles on the Hindu form of astronomy/astrology (Hindu months, the Hindu calendar, etc).
If you are going to create astronomy-related or physics-related categories, you may want to discuss your ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects to at least build consensus for your ideas first. Dr. Submillimeter 10:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the first I don't know why you would have thought that. Most Muslims aren't Arabs and a notable minority of the world's Arabs are not Muslim. I'm not even sure why a difficult to define ethnic identity like "Arab", that is irrelevant to science, is preferrable to one like Islam. (I know we don't have a Who is an Arab? article, but that's because of Wikipedia demographics. It is in fact an issue in the real world, a bigger one perhaps as Arabs are a larger people, one of many Wikipedians find comparatively uninteresting)
On the second I didn't know there was any such requirement on category creation. As I was thinking more in terms of the History of Astronomy anyway I don't see how they'd necessarily help.--T. Anthony 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that should be enough. Man all the time I've wasted here the last two years! Anyway I may pop in from time to time and I leave a proposed category name at the bottom in case anyone wants to start that. It's been, I don't know something. Support Citizendium, down with Wikipedia and all that stuff. See you when I see you.--T. Anthony 09:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music

Redoubling my efforts[edit]

I meant to quit, I was sincere, and yet I failed. I intend to work harder on it as I really do see Wikipedia as a mostly negative force.--T. Anthony 11:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be greatly appreciated[edit]

Hello there, I am a fellow member of Wikiproject jazz. I was wondering, if you had a moment to spare, if you would be willing to give your opinion on a matter at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 15 concerning a category I created. The category is [[Category:Jazz musicians of New Orleans]], and it has been proposed that the article be merged with Musicians of New Orleans and American jazz musicians. This is precisely why I created the category, because it seemed to me the birthplace of jazz music and continous modern symbol of jazz certainly deserves a category unto itself. Regardless of your opinion, I would greatly appreciate your input there so as to have a discussion over the matter. Thanks. (Mind meal 03:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hmmm. I see the logic, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'll leave a comment though.--T. Anthony 04:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for entering the discussion. Just to be clear, it is not my intention to sway anyone to my way of thinking here. I am simply attempting to formulate consensus among members of our project. I know I said it on the actual page for discussion in a different way, but New Orleans and jazz go together like bread and butter. And New Orleans jazz encompasses a living tradition that continues to evolve and explore new modes of expression. There are Afro-Cuban jazz artists there. Dixieland artists. Generally every jazz musician from The Big Easy is extremely proud to hail from the city. I would even argue that Kansas City and Chicago could arguably deserve their own categories, though the case is not quite as strong. But both cities have had a tremendous impact on the music. It isn't so much a genre as it is a timeless tradition in the city. My argument is, of course, the two are interlinked in a way that, for example, New York rappers is not. At any rate, thank you again for adding your thoughts. (Mind meal 04:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

One final vote?[edit]

Hello T. Thanks for making that proposal. It was a valiant effort, but unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will resolve the dispute. Might I convince you to make one final vote on the matter? I've presented a number of options (including the one your proposed) for approval voting, to see which one is most acceptable to the editors. Again, thanks, and sorry this Wikipedia thing has been something of a millstone around your neck. I can relate. Nick Graves 15:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but my interest in the discussion is ebbing rapidly.--T. Anthony 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Converts[edit]

Hi T , sorry if you thought I had meant you when I referred to bullying- I was in fact referring to Bus Stop. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. I had taken converts out again, which might have confused you. I just was thinking maybe we should wait until we come to a better conclusion. I don't know though, now, as it's all confusing to me. I might bail on the discussion. Which would mean trying to finally succeed at bailing at Wikipedia in general.--T. Anthony 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profound thanks[edit]

I realize the external pressures you have been under, and just want you to know that I and I hope several others are very grateful to you for all your work. And I would like to say that I think most of us are sorry for keeping you away from Enya and other duties, but are very appreciative of the work you have done. John Carter 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm not sure why I left Enya as one of my few categorizations left. I mean I listen to many kinds of music, read science fiction, and used to even write stories. Still I created the Enya category, and was one of the few in it, so left it in for that reason. Well that and Enya is not very controversial. Most criticism of her is that she's dull, not objectionable in some way, and I can live with being seen as dull. If I kept all my old categories people might want to harangue me about them in some way. (I've already gotten some "you're a Catholic", followed by some odd assumptions, responses. Curiously that has not happened at the one discussion. It's possible that's because Catholics "aren't Christians" so I'm a neutral party. Just kidding)--T. Anthony 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:T._Anthony/Archive_7&oldid=1139114360"