User:Silence/Archive0004

Welcome to my talk page. I like you. -Silence 00:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi!
After reading your responses at my talk page and Talk:Ultimate fate of the universe, I have to say, your username is terribly deceptive. ^_^

...and I've just noticed that, additionally, I'm writing this on the talk page of someone who is not you. Hee, you are a silly goose. &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [ &#5200; ] 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * :O -Silence 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Blues
Thanks for your comments to blues FAC. Could you please check whether your objections have been addressed. I have tried to do my best but I am not used to the fair-use practice. Could you help? Vb 13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You have failed to make a formal Fair Use Rationale, even though you could easily check any Featured Article Candidate on the entire page and see countless examples of excellent Rationales. Until this situation is remedied, I can't remove my "object", even though I personally couldn't care less about copyright law. -Silence 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Darth Vader
As you have contributed to the discussion previously, I invite you to comment on my proposal as to the fate of Darth Vader. You are welcome to make a counterproposal as well. — Phil Welch 21:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit Early life of Hugo Chávez
Hello again. I just finished making major revisions to the article, and I invite you now (if you want to) to check my work by copyediting (since you've done such a great job on the Hugo Chavez article). If you decide to do it, I just ask two things:
 * 1) Please do not eliminate the spaces around any &mdash; s. Don't conjoin them to the words they are next to, as it makes it difficult to spellcheck and read in edit mode.
 * 2) Please do not delete the commas after the penultimate items in lists. That is to say, I want lists looking like this:
 * One, Two, and Three.
 * I don't want this:

Thanks. &larr; S ARAVASK &mdash; 12:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * One, Two and Three.

Are you there?
I think you are missing my replies in that "BUSY BUSY" heading! Are you? I am waiting for he reply! Thanks! PassionInfinity 13:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry for the long delay. I have indeed been quite busy. Regarding the three links you told me to read:
 * Are humans 'hard-wired' to believe in God?
 * Some of the article makes a lot of sense to me. It is absolutely true that human brains are designed to see causal relationships and patterns extraordinarily well, to the extent that we even see such things where they don't exist &mdash; like in following superstitions, in seeing images in the clouds... Other parts of the article, however, seem to jump to nonsensical conclusions. For example, the line "Both men believe the connection between the brain and spirituality suggests there is a physiological basis for religion--that human beings, in essence, are hard-wired for God." Why does there being a physiological basis (via the brain's neurochemistry) for spirituality suggest that human beings are "hard-wired for God"? There are countless aspects of spirituality that have nothing to do with God&mdash;and, indeed, spirituality does not even necessitate religion, as almost anyone in their lifetime will experience what could be described as "spiritual sensations", in such profound feelings as love. Intensely spiritual experiences are just as much based on human biology as intense emotions, feelings, and thoughts are.
 * So, the article's on the right track, but a bit too sensationalist and vague on some points, failing to prove its topic, but just assuming that because spirituality is biological, humans are "hard-wired" for "God". Interesting, read, though. Note also "spiritual experience is not based on superstition but is instead real, biological and part of our primitive biological drives." &mdash; this is true, but while the experience itself is real and biological, descriptions of the experience do indeed, almost without fail, draw on superstition and arbitrary mysticism. Just as saying "there is a storm brewing" is not superstitious even if you don't know why it's brewing or any of its physical properties, while it is superstitious to say "the storm is brewing because of sin", simply experiencing deep and profound feelings of love or oneness or whatever is not superstitious, but saying that these experiences are the result of your connection to an invisible man who created the universe is superstitious.
 * "it is the divine inspiration that activates those areas of the brain, instead of the other way around--but to Joseph, the order is irrelevant." : This makes little sense to me. Why would someone not care about the cause and effect of what he's studying? Sounds like just a way to implicitly advocate theism without providing any evidence to the point, and using weasel words rather than citing anyone who actually said such. In fact, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the entire article is written from a theist's perspective, rather than a scientific one. Though at least it attempts to learn about the physiological causes of various experiences, even though it fails to have the intellectual vigor needed to question the very basic and flawed assumption that there is a God.
 * "In other words, humans are hard-wired for God because there is a real God to experience." : Again, the article fails to bridge the gap between "spiritual experience" and "God", completely ignoring the fact that the monotheistic conception of "God" is a relatively recent concept in human history, that a huge portion of the world today experiences strong spiritual feelings and completely lacks belief in God, and repeatedly conflating religious ecstasy with theism. Very dishonest tactics at play here. The analogy is also flawed: we have eyes because there are sights to see, but feelings of spiritual ecstasy do not allow us to "observe" God in any way, to learn anything about him, and there's no way that you could argue that in a Godless world it would be biologically impossible for people to feel euphoria. Hell, drugs are even more efficient ways to reach that goal than spiritual bliss is. In addition, this argument is a begging the question because it says "A. Humans are hard-wired for God. B. Because of A, there is a real God to experience." without having proven (or even argued the case for) A!
 * Furthermore, the "God" concept is not universally associated with spiritual bliss; numerous peoples have associated such euphoria with something completely unrelated, and, in fact, even if "God" was invented based on people trying to come up with reasons for such profound pleasure to be possible (exactly as one might try to rationalize a natural disaster by saying that it's because of our sin), that in no way suggests that God exists, it merely suggests that the experiences exist. If someone made up a being to explain human greed, apathy, hatred, etc., such as "the Devil", and we discovered the actual physiological reasons for the existence of those feelings and behavior patterns, would the physiological reasons suggest that the Devil exists because the behaviors arbitrarily associated with an imaginary being exist, on the flawed notion that "we wouldn't have those negative experiences if there wasn't an evil Devil for us to experience with them!" This is obvious nonsense, and just as much so as the "spiritual experiences -> God" argument. Intellectual laziness under a thin layer of technobabble is nothing new, I'm afraid.
 * ""If you're a scientist and you find people having the same experience, colored by their own cultural differences," : And here's the sneaky clause again, that most readers wouldn't notice, suggesting that everyone biologically believes in God by stating that only "cultural differences" distinguish the same experience, without showing that the experience truly is "the same". And to jump from this to belief in God is nonsense; you might as well argue that the existence of feelings called "love" proves that Batman created the universe. Total non sequitur.
 * "Newberg acknowledges that at some scientific level, the question of the existence of God will forever remain unanswered." : Only to the extent that every question will "forever remain unanswered", because nothing in this universe is 100% certain. The question of God's existence has been as firmly answered as it probably ever will, and has certainly been as firmly answered as the question of Thor's existence.
 * ""You can't throw open that veil of the brain and get outside of your own brain and see what's going on in the objective external world." : Who ever said we needed to? All you have to do to "see what's going on in the objective external world" is to open your eyes. You have sensory perceptions; flawed though they may be, they're the best thing we have for helping understanding the external world, and we must rely on them for improving that understanding.
 * "I don't think we would ever say we could prove or disprove God just on the basis of our imaging studies" : How do these studies have anything to do with the existence of God? The existence of God has already been disproven to the greatest extent it possibly can, simply by virtue of a profound lack of evidence supporting the God hypothesis. All these studies are doing is helping us understand why people have believed in God in the past, which is a neurological and biological and sociological issue, not a cosmological one regarding the nature of existence and of a real being called "God". Pretty flimsy connection this article has drawn between spirituality and God, truly.
 * "whether we create it ourselves or whether there really is a God." : Correct. Thus, the fact that many people believe in God in no way makes it more likely that God truly exists, since even if there wasn't a God people would think there was. :) -Silence 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 
 * I'll respond to this soon, hopefully.
 * links:
 * I'll respond to this soon, hopefully.

DV/AS dichotomy
Hello! I hope you're well. I see that you are heavily involved in discussions regarding discreet articles for our favourite Star Wars villain/cyborg. I've made a proposal, based on another, that appears to have major support generally and with the apparent support of a key/prior opponent. To ensure there isn't any more equivocating, given the long and contorted history therein, I nonetheless propose mounting an RfC to settle this matter. I'd appreciate your commentary and input. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 02:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't really have time to participate heavily in this debate, though it seems to be becoming increasingly likely that the article will be split into two. I'm glad you've proposed such an excellent compromise, and it agrees with my own on almost all points, with the exception that mine makes Vader the more central of the two articles, and would have more info on Anakin Skywalker than Anakin Skywalker has on Darth Vader, because Vader's a more commonly-known and iconic figure and the more common name for the character. But having a little info on Anakin's post-third movie life on Anakin Skywalker seems an effective compromise. -Silence 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Again, thanks for weighing in regarding the RfC/poll.  I appreciate your input.  It looks like a split may occur; time will tell if and how this will unfold. :)


 * Moreover, I'm sure you know of my spat with a certain antagonist ... in review of prior materials, I see you were similarly challenged. I hope I haven't acted inappropriately throughout – I don't think so – but will call anyone to account ... particularly those who have obfuscated the issue or attempt to denigrate.  To give you a little more perspective: witness this note and my response, and the response to that.  This is all the more troubling as the antagonist is a Wp admin, whom you'd expect to uphold a sense of decorum - i.e., questionable actions and judgement.  Anyhow it was unfortunate, but my actions have been necessary (methinks).


 * As well, I think I might have inadvertently removed the dual infoboxes when adding the unified one (in my desire for 'compromise'). No offence intended; my apologies.  I agree that a single one is 'cumbersome' ... all the more reason for a split! :)  If the articles are split, I largely support the provisional ones and boxes you've created; may I edit them (if need be)?


 * Thoughts? Thanks again, and may the Force be with you. :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of your comments toward Phil Welch seem to have been a bit unnecessary (threats like "But let me be absolutely clear: if you demonstrate any additional incivility or impropriety towards me or if I observe you being so to others, you will be held accountable." and insults like "simpleton nonsense" are not exactly condudive towards civility), and so have some of my comments towards him, and so have a number of his comments towards each of us. So, I think it's fair to say that, though he may have his faults, he's no villain, and is trying his best to work with us to improve the Darth Vader article. If he wants to remove himself from the process, he should be allowed to, and if he ever chooses to return, he should be welcomed, as his contributions in the past have been superb. This is a complex and contentious topic, so it's understandable that some less-than-diplomatic exchanges have occurred, and I recommend putting it behind you and continuing to do an excellent job of responding to the points raised regarding the possible article-split (I get the feeling that the comparison to Lord Voldemort/Tom Riddle will help us seal this deal; I'd been searching for an excellent analogy like that for a while, as I knew there had to be some on Wikipedia).
 * As for whoever removed the templates (and added a merged one which, though, cumbersome, is actually the best possible way to handle the article if it's kept as only one page; an excellent compromise, though obviously less preferable than the split-article ones), I really don't care, and it doesn't bother me at all (if it did, I'd have reverted the change at the time); the recommended templates are more important than the merged-one currently, however, because they're the ones that aren't featured on any articles. And you can absolutely edit them, as well as the User:Silence/Darth Vader and User:Silence/Anakin Skywalker pages I put up a while back for format ideas regarding the split. -Silence 15:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey there! Thanks for your reply: I appreciate it.  I realise that things can get rather heated and recent exchanges have been unfortunate ... present company excluded. :)  Understand, though, that I entered the debate somewhat recently and with the best of intentions, and was being accused by the antagonist of the opposite, being "obstructionist", and of making personal attacks from the get-go (check the history).  I was actually indifferent to one or two articles (hence the conciliatory unibox), but it seems that (from early on) the article has been co-opted by forces wanting only that state (for valid and other reasons).  Partially as a result of the antagonist's behaviour (but largely for other reasons stated), I have since been emboldened (unofficially!) for the dual option.


 * I have also been acting fully aware of his behaviour to you et al. earlier (I reviewed all the archives), so I thought it hypocritical that he would insinuate verbosity (though I don't deny that I can be!) I am generally civil and know when to acquiesce but feel I was wholly justified to respond to him as I did ... eye for an eye notwithstanding.  (Oh: note that my quip about "simpleton nonsense" – inappropriate, yes – was made after he concluded the discussion.)  And I do not make threats: if anyone is discourteous here (and there really isn't any reason why the antagonist was from the get-go), I would move to have them disciplined for their actions and would expect the reverse.  I don't desmirch his contributions, but people can get a lot more with honey than with vinegar.  It's doubleplusgood that Wikipedians can extricate themselves from discussions whether they've erred or not.  In this respect, I too have done so and have put it behind me.


 * I think I did remove the two-for-the-one infobox; I added the unified one. As noted, no offence intended, but it's a modus vivendi until this is resolved.  And I completely understand your reasons; thanks for your support and kind words.  And I look forward to working with you to whatever end in the time ahead!  E Pluribus Anthony 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Something that still annoys me about you
It still annoys me looking back at the fight we had. Why? Cuz i still do not understand it. Cuz I never thought it would get to that level. I always thought (still think) that you were (are) a smart guy. I knew we could get past any initial disagreement. I concluded this from what I read you wrote in your own page and in all the edits you made and everything else. So how was it possible that I could keep you going when I wanted you to snap out of it so that we could get to a nice level of discussion. Eventually it happened. But I still do not understand what it is that I did that annoyed you to be so ... unlike you (this is what I want to believe - based on my expectations of you - yes, it is all about managing expectations). Cheers. -- Anagnorisis 01:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You retracted this comment below, but incidentally, you might be interested to know that I had a very similar reaction to your first (and subsequent) comments as you say that you had to mine. Throughout the entire discussion, I kept waiting for you to "snap out of" your hateful behavior, to actually read and respond to my comments so we could have a true discussion and resolve our differences, but you were totally unwilling to drop the hostility so that we could have a "nice level of discussion". Likewise, before you created that thread, I had an extremely high opinion of you, and hadn't found fault with a single statement or edit you'd ever made up to that point. But when you started posting such hateful and acidic remarks, pages and pages of them, my understanding of you rapidly changed, as you demonstrated an extraordinary contempt and disregard for your fellow man, as well as a trollish willingness to disrupt Wikipedia for the sake of taunting someone you dislike.
 * I had an overly idealized conception of you from the start, and you apparently had the same for me before you decided for some reason that I was "too proud", so both of us probably reacted a bit too harshly from having our illusions about the other shattered, and failed to realize that even the most valuable editors have their share of faults, and shouldn't be vilified for them.
 * We both clearly found fault with each other in what we did: I objected to your constant insults, dismissive attitude, accusations, attacks, and backhanded jabs, while you objected to my overlong comments, to what you perceived as my being "arrogant" (though you never provided an example of my actually behaving arrogantly), and to my taking your offensive behavior too seriously rather than just shrugging it off.
 * Everyone has their faults as well as their virtues and talents, and everyone gets embroiled in unfortunate disputes at times, unless they completely avoid human contact or conflict (not a good alternative!): the trick is to learn to live with it, to try to understand where other people are coming from, and to learn from your mistakes. I've learned not to waste so much time engaging in a discussion where someone is clearly unwilling to actually discuss, but is only interested in making personal attacks; and you've presumably learned not to go to such great lengths just to try to "knock someone down a peg" or attack someone's character. So, though our argument was unfortunate, at least we can be content in knowing that we were able to resolve it in the end, and in knowing that we've learned new things about interacting with others in the experience. -Silence 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

gonna be hard work keeping this article from sliding back downhill
Saw you writing that as you made some edits in the Chavez article. I agree. We should have kept improving that article instead of moving so fast into trying to get another notch in the belt -with a new article that is far from being FAC quality (it is very POV and with a lot of inaccurate info). Not enough time for going trhough several iterations to improve it. BTW, regarding what I rote above, ignore it. I do not know what came to me last night. I was drinking and I guess I got ... mushy. Cheers. -- Anagnorisis 04:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Haha, no problem. Yes, I feel too that we should have stayed focused on the Chavez article; I feel that there are a large number of very important changes to make before the article appears on the main page on December 10th, but we've wasted so much time on this new FAC that most of those changes will be impossible. We'll just have to do what we can. On the plus side, of course, is that the "early life" article will be much better and more expansive than it was before this FAC began, and it will probably get more hits than any of the other Chavez sub-articles since it's almost right at the top of the page. So, every cloud has its silver lining! -Silence 04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (Note: I'm perfectly willing to analyze our behavior in that unfortunate dispute, to help both of us realize where we made mistakes and thus how we can avoid making them in the future, as well as to help us understand each other better. However, I strong recommend reading Talk:Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez/Archive06 in depth before we engage in such a discussion, as it will be even more difficult for us to see the discussion in the same light if one of us hasn't even read large spans of the discussion. If you ever feel like doing so in the future, I'm sure you'll find it "interesting". :)) -Silence 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez
Hi. Thanks for the dit you just made to the Chavez article. You should realize that there were some junk edits and vandalism (such as changing the GDP drop from 25% to 1%) that came right before yours. I don't know if I can get in there and revert these, since I do not want edit conflicts with you. Thanks. Saravask 04:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I'll just make one more edit and then stop so the vandalisms can be removed. -Silence 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I just removed them. I was going if you knew anything about IPA (International Phonetics Association) pronunciation. I got a suggestion in the Rabindranath Tagore peer review to insert an IPA pronunciation guide in the lead sentence. I made some feeble attempts to insert one. Is it correct? I need to know before I put it up for FAC this week. Is it also possible to make one for the Chavez article? Thanks. Saravask 04:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I couldn't say if it's correct, because I myself don't know how to correctly pronounce "Rabindranath Tagore" :) IPA is complicated, and I don't understand all of it yet; I advise you not to worry about including it in Chavez until you're certain of how it would be worded, especially since it would probably draw an occasional complaint from people who aren't familiar with the IPA characters or think including it clutters things up. (Of course, if you wanted to seek a Spoken Word version of the article and could find someone who's got great English and can pronounce Venezuelan terms, that'd solve any questions of pronunciation. Though the article might be a bit too long for that to be feasible (we could kill the guy!), and I'd advise waiting a while before pursuing that since it's important to make sure we're happy with every single line of the article before we try for a Spoken Word version.) -Silence 04:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

copyedit
Hello. Someone on the FAC has stated this: "A fresh copyeditor (rewriter...) on this job might help...". Could you, as an impartial observer, please help me and copyedit? I've already made a go of it, and apparently have failed. It seems that it your copyedits do the trick, and there are not that many sections. Just a request, and I would be eternally grateful. Thanks. Saravask 02:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * . I deleted this because I withdrew the nomination, and the comment is no longer relevant. I am not aware of any policy forbidding people from deleting their own comments. If there is, please let me know. Sorry. Saravask 18:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When did I say it was forbidden? I just prefer not to have comments deleted when I find them interesting and useful reminders of something I plan to do anyway (copyedit that article). Whether the article is a nominee for FA or not has nothing to do with that. And you can always strike your text if it's out-of-date, as you've done before. -Silence 18:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured article
After some editing Portugal from the Restoration to the 1755 Earthquake (now moved to History of Portugal (1578-1777) has considerably improved. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Good catch!
Yes, that was quite something...thanks! --HappyCamper 02:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh. These vandals are tricky, ne? -Silence 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, very tricky. That was the first time that happened to me. Take a look at the fallout here! See you around! --HappyCamper 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

@*#&)*#& %&*$&
Well, you guarangoddamnteedsonofabitch. From the Chavez article and talk page, I see you did quite an excellent job. However, I am disturbed by some comments you made:


 * I previously attempted to create the same effect with a To-do List mentioning a few areas where the article could use improvement, but the list was hidden by Saravask,
 * I hid this list because I thought that the items there were dealt with. That's why I didn't outright delete it, in case someone else disagreed with my belief that those tasks were done.


 * Er, I apologize. I didn't realize that you felt all the issues had been resolved; either you didn't mention that, or I missed it in the many discussions there, sorry. I assumed you'd just removed it for the same reason you removed many of the other boxes at the top of the page around the same time, to conserve space (not a bad idea, many other Talk pages have far too much cluttering their top). Most of the goals I mentioned in the "todo" were long-term ones, anyway, like the "remove pro-Chavez bias", which is practically systemic in its undercurrent, and will probably require integrating all noteworthy and substantiated criticism of Chavez into the article as a whole, possibly instead of having a separate "criticism of Chavez" article (or possibly not, but that idea was recently brought up at the Criticism of Wikipedia article, noting that we don't have any "praise of..." articles, and I find it interesting). So, obviously just a misunderstanding, resulting from both of us not being clear in our intentions regarding that box. -Silence 05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Another reason was that I didn't want to attract the attention of certain undesirable individuals to the "Early life ... " FAC (the "Early life" article was mentioned in the to do list). It is bizarre, since these people presented themselves on the talk page immediately before the main page featuring.


 * ? What? What "certain undesirable individuals"? Wouldn't it have been much better to get more comments for the FAC, since it would give a wider perspective on it? Votes are always much more accurate and useful the more people there are. I'm afraid I don't understand. Also, trying to hide links to the "Early life" article also meant that many fewer people saw a fantastic article that you'd worked hard on, so if that was your intent, it seems rather like biting off your nose to spite your face.... -Silence 05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to display it again, now that I that realize that you do not see the tasks as done. Saravask 04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * and most of my requests to focus on improving that section of the article over the last few weeks were ignored,
 * Uh, what requests? I really wasn't aware that you wanted me to revise those sections. Saravask 04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I wanted you to do all that specifically, and you did do a couple of edits to that section, at last. My requests were directed at the general group of everyone editing Hugo Chavez to work together on the last few sections of the article (and, to a lesser extent, on the first half of the "1999" section and the entire "2002" section, since both also need a little work to clarify 'em). I did mention that I thought your FAC nomination of "Early life" right when we needed to focus more than ever on Hugo Chavez prior to his featuring was very poorly-timed to the point of being counterproductive, though some good did come out of it in the end in the form of how much you improved the "Early life" article. But anyway, no point going over all that past nonsense now, it doesn't do any good to point fingers. We can easily start working on improving those sections now, it's not like work on the article should drop now that it's off the main page. -Silence 05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway, it's no big deal. The article, under your stewardship, came out of its main page debut looking much better than before. I'm actually surprised that you didn't come out of the experience with a couple dozen death threats.


 * Hee. Honestly, I'm disappointed. Half the fun of working on controversial articles is the drama and mayhem, but Chavez got a relatively low-key reception. Even the vandalism was half-hearted, compared to many FAs I've seen! We'll have to credit that to you and Anagnorisis doing such a great job on satisfying both sides of the Chavez controversies. -Silence 05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One last request: would you mind removing all mentions of my username in your comments on the talk page (especially under "Wow"? I don't want that undue attention. Thanks, have a good long rest from that exhausting ordeal, and take care. Saravask 04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The attention's not undue, but I'll respect your wishes. Can I use some sort of alias to refer to you, then? Like "Mr. S"? (Anagnorisis can be "Mr. A"~)
 * And, really, it wasn't exhausting; it was refreshing. I've rarely seen an FA that Wikipedia can be so proud of, and much of that was the direct result of your incredible amount of work on it. The Footnotes and References alone in that article have me in awe! Such painstaking detail! I hope we can work again on a project in the future, and if you ever want my copyediting help on any articles, or any sort of help at all, feel free to ask! -Silence 05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. You forgot to uncomment your "todo" box on the talk page. I also acknowledge the pro-Chavez POV undercurrent in the article. You must realize that I've only known about Wikipedia for less than three months, and have only slowly started to gain some modicum of a grasp of NPOV. Honestly, some of the material towards the end of the article (most of which I wrote a long while back) makes me absolutely cringe. Thanks. Saravask 05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The "todo" box isn't such a big deal. And I haven't been very involved in Wikipedia for that long, either: I only really started editing three months and ten days ago, on August 30th, 2005. So no need to apologize, we've all got plenty to learn; writing good encyclopedias isn't as easy as the newbie-welcomers want us to think. :) -Silence 05:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; Saffron
Hey, thanks for that. If you want to lend a little help on another article, you could always copyedit Saffron &mdash; a much cuter and more pleasant topic than . You could also offer comments in the current peer review. It'll be much fun if you want to help; but if you decide not, then no big deal. Saravask 21:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Never mind. I've asked enough. Just go have fun on your own projects. Thanks. Saravask 01:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I swear to god, you've crossed out so many of your comments, I'm surprised you haven't found a way to double-cross-out text. :f -Silence 02:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Regarding Featured article candidates/Race of Jesus/archive1
I'm glad to hear it, but archived FAC votes aren't meant to be edited; the proper place for such discussion is Talk:Race of Jesus. Also, welcome back! -Silence 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Irra, uma outra vez.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I love Portuguese profanity too, but that doesn't really address what I said. Anyway, seeya 'round. -Silence 23:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It only means "damn!" or "crap! again" Which I am referring to another problem with the article, not with you. Keen eye...If I ever cussed out anyone here I would stick to plain old English....seems to be the best policy.  Wow Silence, I am really going to have to do a lot of work on that article.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 00:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I know it's mild profanity, and don't care one way or another where you do curse me out, though you're right that it's best to communicate in English in most situations on the English Wikipedia. Though, I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your comment. I didn't bring up how much work would be required to improve any article, I was just pointing out that it's common practice to bring up such matters on Talk pages, not on archived FACs. -Silence 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, Silence : ). .... ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  06:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Hazm
It seems silly that there be argument over this issue but I hope you see my side. I understand that you do not like the template but nothing says that it should be removed from the page. When you change it without asking the page's editors and then revert again when one of the editors has concerns I find that to be very impolite. It is by chance that I think you have a good point, but if I was vehemently opposed to your action there is no reason that you should be able to do it despite my and another editor of the page's opinion. Next time would you please drop a note at the talk page first and wait a bit for discussion. If you are chafing at the bit to change it right away then say so on a talk page message. Maybe say, "I wanted to change it now but revert if you have objections and we can discuss". Thank you. gren グレン 11:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The only reason I didn't drop a note at the Talk page first was because there was no reason for me to believe that anyone would be offended by the page. And if anyone was, the easiest way for them to see the change would be to see it with their own eyes, on the page staring at them, not to mention it only on the Talk page. I apologize for the revert, but don't see why you exhibit such a strange possessiveness over the article, acting like people who have edited the article in the past have some sort of strange dominion over or higher authority than those who haven't; have you forgotten that this is Wikipedia? "Waiting for discussion" is a waste of time, especially since the vast majority of articles that are as small and incredibly stubbish as the Ibn Hazm article have few, if any, regular visitors. Really, it's surprising that there's so little real information on the page if there's been so much activity in the article's history; I've seen many articles that were five times the size of Ibn currently in less than five edits. I don't doubt that the silly infobox fiddling has contributed to that, as it helps simulate an artificial length and make the article seem much longer than it really is, stunting the growth of its genuine content.
 * And "I wanted to change it now but revert if you have objections and we can discuss" goes without saying (except for the "revert" part, since I don't see why reversion is necessary to discuss a matter; it's just as easy to discuss it and wait to revert until an actual problem is found with the new version); why spend 5 minutes typing out a lengthy disclaimer to every edit I make, when there's no way of psychically knowing which edits will be controversial and when until it actually is said by others, and when, in fact, no one has yet objected to any aspect of the change yet&mdash;you almost seem to agree with me, you just have a strange, conservative aversion to change that makes you fear sudden new edits and boldness even when you haven't quite found a reason not to make the change. I'a copyeditor, not a diplomat; I'll gladly discuss any issue you wish, but delicacy and long, meandering bureaucratic disclaimers aren't my thing. -Silence 11:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your politeness. I just felt that I was trying to defend the rights of other editors who had seemed to want the box... whether that's silly or not I don't know. I believe you do this all to make wikipedia better and respect that :)  I agree with you pretty much on the whole... sorry to make this into more of an ordeal than it had to be. Have a good day and hopefully we will meet again under less silly circumstances :) gren グレン 11:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Name
Do you know whether "Saffron" should be named that? Or should the article be named "Crocus sativus" instead? For example, the article on bread mold is named Neurospora crassa, and the article on rice blast is named Magnaporthe grisea. Saravask 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia isn't consistent on this matter, so I'd go with the most central Wikipedia naming policy on this case: use the name that's most common. "Saffron" is clearly the most common name, and what most people will search for this for, so we should use that. Additionally, consider that your article currently addresses both the spice "saffron" and the plant "crocus sativus". If you renamed it, the spice would be too marginalized. Of course, another possible solution you may want to consider is splitting up the article so it doesn't conflate the spice with the plant, and has Saffron for the spice and Crocus sativus for the plant. Or maybe that would be a bad idea, since the spice and the plant are so very closely linked (one coming directly from the other); I don't know. Just don't follow other page examples without thinking about whether those pages are wrong; surely the fact that there's currently not even a redirect page at Bread mold suggests that neurospora crassa isn't a good page to use as a model for others. -Silence 05:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You'd be interested in this motto "Qui tacet consentire videtur"  ε γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Saffron (again)
I tried following your comments on the talk page in my copyedits. Many other people have copyedited as well. Could you just take a look at the article and make comments of further problem areas? Are some terms still unexplained? Is some prose still unclear? This time, you don't need to spend any time copyediting. Thanks. Saravask 21:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Latin phrases
Agreed. Delinked. I've been going through fixing links to the disambig page for BC, and since the BC in reference of time just points the user to the Anno Domini article, that's what I've been using. Search 4  Lancer  22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, cool. I originally left BC linked because I figured people might be interested in the various things "BC" can mean, but I suppose it's not necessary. Fewer links is best. -Silence 18:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Culture of ancient Rome
I loved your edit summary :) Just a reminder to remember to include the pointer to Culture of Rome in the edit summaries when you paste the text into other articles, so that authorship record is preserved. Zocky 14:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

GA
I'm afraid I must hate you now for putting Template:GA on some of my favorite articles. -Silence 17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid hate just isn't up to snuff yet. No references, no images, and no information on the history of hate. But I'll keep you in mind. :) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Darn. Well, I'll find some references and see if I can bring it up to snuff over the next few weeks, then re-nominate it. Thanks for your time.


 * ... Hey, wait a minute.. -Silence 06:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Architecture of Africa
Just wanted to thank you for your edits to this article - it now looks much tidier and reads more easily. Warofdreams talk 02:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's no problem, the article was short enough that it took little time to edit. You asked so nicely on the WP:AID that I had to do something. It seems like an article with a lot of potential, so I hope it gets expanded in the future; I know very little about African architecture, but it seems like a topic that could have plenty of interesting facts and details, spanning as much time and space as it does. -Silence 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

comments
It was part of my own comment that I had deleted. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you deleted two other users' comments when you first posted. Then you re-edited your own comment to change a couple of words, without reverting your deletion. I restored the two comments that you deleted; an edit conflict is the only reason your own comment changes were reverted, please feel free to re-change your comment (just don't re-delete other users' posts). -Silence 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * hm...yeah, I see that now. The deletion of others' comments was not intentional and maybe a database glitch. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

floating tables
you said i should float the table in the rapping article. what do you mean by this? i'm going to amalgamate the sections right now, but please explain that.--Urthogie 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I said to unfloat it, where floating it is having it left- or right-aligned like it is now with text and images next to it, and unfloated is the default state, left-aligned with white space next to it. It's not against policy to float the TOC, but it's inadvisable in most articles because it crowds the article too much. -Silence 18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ight, thanks.--Urthogie 19:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Saffron
Hi Silence - I'm afraid I appear to have inadvertently wiped your edits at Saffron due to an edit conflict - I think I've got most of them to how you'd wanted, but could you check over, please? - thanks, MPF 12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You missed restoring a lot of my edits, like all my image changes in History, Culinary, Trade, and Notes. I'll try to fix those reverts later, when I have more than a few seconds available. -Silence 13:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can spot and fix some more them (it wasn't easy with lots of paragraphs all being red text despite what appeared to be the same wording) - MPF 14:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. Don't worry about it, I'll take care of the changes later. -Silence 15:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I did find and fix a couple more - MPF 15:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Silence - on the change to International English, that's correct (in accord with the Wiki MoS) as it is a European/south Asian species, not an American species. The style use by major contributor is only a 'last resort' choice - MPF 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * PS in case you're wondering, I have also sometimes done the reverse and changed articles about American plants from British/International to American spelling, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oenothera&diff=28871268&oldid=27508364 MPF 22:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem consistent with what I've actually seen editors doing in my time at Wikipedia, but it makes sense, so I won't oppose the spelling changes. Thanks for the explanation! -Silence 22:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop
I don't know why you keep reverting MPF. What he says about the need for European usage is quite logical (there is hardly any saffron grown in America, while far more is grown in nations where Commonwealth/British spellings are used. To stop edit-warring over this, I've tagged the talk page as . Please do not start a revert was over this. Also, I do not like your image placements because you are removing many images that provide valuable information to readers and draw them in. I've worked hard on this article, and my wishes on these matters, considering that they don't violate anything in WP:MOS, deserve final consideration. Thanks. Saravask 22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, what do you mean, "keep reverting"? I only "reverted" (actually I manually changed all of the Commonwealth-to-American spellings while leaving his good edits, which took about 45 minutes) a single time, because every time I've seen someone make a switch in dialects for an article it's been reverted. I then took it to MPF's page, and he very nicely clarified for me Wikipedia's preferences regarding when to use Commonwealth/American English, so I told him, an inch above your above post, to go ahead with restoring his spelling changes (which shouldn't be hard, considering I've solely been editing the images thus far, not the text). There is no "edit war", as a single revert followed by a reasoned discussion and resolution is hardly a "war". Yet again, you are too hasty to make aggressive and defensive actions in response to trivial disputes and mistakes that often resolve themselves in the end. Please, just.. calm down.
 * As for your "not liking" my image placements, please feel free to say which placements you don't like, and explain why the other version is better, and we'll go with that. Though taking a slightly less imperious tone (making things sound like ultimatums rarely facilitates free discourse) might make discussion a tad smoother; if you disagree, feel free to disregard all of my advice, as, like my edits, I mean it purely in the interest of providing assistance wherever I can. And, of course, thanks for taking the time to explain the situation to me, though MPF has already done so. -Silence 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, with respect to "color" vs. "colour", you did revert MPF a first time, then reverted him again only a few hours later. Sounds rather close to a revert war to me. But OK. I will explain what I have problems with on the talk page, then make changes. Thanks. Saravask 22:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the second edit again. See the large number of major changes to the page in that edit, completely unrelated to the trivial spelling differences that were reverted? That's because that edit wasn't a revert, it was an edit conflict. He reverted my edit blindly after only a couple of minutes (whereas I at least addressed his edits point-by-point and, after the earlier edit conflict, gave him a number of hours before returnig to edit so he'd have time to finish). He also reverted and screwed up a number of my edits earlier today when he reverted my edit to easily deal with an edit conflict, so there's zero difference between what he did and I did, save that I was less sloppy when handling his edits. Subtly accusing me of trying to provoke an edit war over a mere edit conflict after the dispute had completely resolved itself simply isn't very nice; assume good faith next time rather than trying to vilify me. Or at least find a neutral ground between those two extremes. -Silence 00:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * [Urgh]. I wasn't trying to vilify or subtly accuse you. I was just confused about the back-and-forth conversions concerning such a trivial matter, and I also noted the edit summaries, which were very specific. I see I misunderstood this, and I am glad you explained it to me. Its really not a big deal for me about the spelling anyway &mdash; notice how when people make trivial changes such as "flavor" -> "flavour" or "color" -> "colour", I just let it slide. I don't know what you mean by MPF being sloppy, since we all get into edit conflicts accidentally. I am done with that topic now. But anyway, good work from both of you. Saravask 00:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

AD/CE
I was reading your comments on Saravask's talk page about AD vs. CE. You state 'Additionally, it avoids propagating the POV that the Christian erra is for some reason the "Common Era".' I contend that this is a NPOV:


 * 1) I have read many accounts by Christian historians trying to pinpoint the year of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I remember reading 6 BCE, 4 BCE, and 3 BCE, but no one seems to make a good case for the 1 BCE–1 CE transition.
 * 2) I have heard many estimates of the date of his birth (late winter is popular, because of the lambing season), but there are no credible cases for either Dec. 25, or, more importantly, Jan 1.
 * 3) Considering China and India alone, more non-Christians use the CE/BCE dating system than Christians.

What could be more common than that?--Curtis Clark 15:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I rather miss your logic (if there's any logic there to miss).


 * No, actually, you missed it.


 * I said that it's POV to call the "Christian Era" the "Common Era" (and, to a lesser extent, to go out of your way to relabel the current era of man as being chiefly noteworthy for being "Christian"; BC/AD makes sense for historical reasons, but CE/BCE doesn't, and thus its clear POV is much more repugnant than an archaic abbreviation is); I never even mentioned the fact that the system isn't based on when Jesus was actually probably born, which seems irrelevant to what I said to the point of being a red herring. Who cares when some random dude who might have lived in Palestine about 2,000 years ago was born? We're talking about dating systems and terminological disputes, not Jesus.


 * It's the common era because it is common to many groups of people, only some of which are Christian. There's nothing logical about "Anno Domini" even from a Christian viewpoint. I'm not saying we should discount "AD" because people counted wrong, but rather because many, many non-Christians use a system in which this is 2005 because it is convenient and almost universal, not because it marks (accurately or not) the Christian era.


 * I wouldn't necessarily oppose a unified attempt to introduce a new dating system that isn't based on a misestimation of Jesus' birth (I like the one that dates from 50 years ago, for example), but I would oppose most attempts to rename the system we already have without improving its relevance, purely for the sake of Political Correctness,


 * You seem to have an issue with political correctness.


 * semantics, and, according to most supporters of CE/BCE who I've discussed with, as a POV way to "stick it to Christians" for being so darned oppressive).


 * I'm not them. It's a Common Era. CE is an accurate, descriptive term. It seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.--Curtis Clark 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway, could you please explain why any of what you've said above is significant to this discussion? The fact that the "AD/BC" system (and, as a result, the "CE/BCE" system) is probably based on the wrong date of Jesus' birth hardly makes the slightest bit of difference, and, if anything, is an argument against the CE/BCE system, as it shows that the "AD/BC" system is perfectly acceptable on the grounds that since it probably isn't based on the birth date of the guy some people think is the Messiah or Son of God, there's no more reason to be offended by it than there is to be offended by Thursday just because it's the "Day of Thor", or "March" just because it's the "Month of Mars". I treat Christianity the same way I treat all other religions, both current ones and past ones: as an adorable an amusing little story (albeit one with some undeniably dull portions; the Bible needs a good copyedit, in my view). Being offended by two letters of the Latin alphabet, be they BC or AD or ZJ, just because they're derived from some superstitious guys in the Middle Ages who made an error in calculations, is profoundly silly. -Silence 16:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

YOU
I am absolutely angry, see what I have to say here. If my work is not good enough here, maybe I shouldn't bother to stay. ε γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedist deleted this paragraph, so I assume things have cooled down a bit and we won't have to have some big old ugly confrontation about something so silly as a weeks-old Internet poll. Archiving as struck text. No hard feelings, Molotov? I assure you that no one would be more upset than me if you left and no longer generously improved Wikipedia articles with your great contributions (and if knowing that would upset me would just make you want to leave more, nevermind :F). -Silence 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much for the excellent additions to Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them. jengod


 * No prob. I liked the page, and you asked for additions, so, glad to oblige. -Silence 00:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor
You made this comment a while ago, but it certainly made me smile:

1 Corinthians 2:11 - "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Also Charles Darwin is a douchebag."

Cheers, Citizen Premier


 * I don't know what to say. I'm honored. Thank you very much for the barnstar! If I'd known blasphemy would merit me such honors, I'd have mutilated a lot more Biblical quotations! Oh, and if there was a barnstar for being-nice-enough-to-respond-to-old-crap, I'd give you one. I'm a big fan of surprise trips down memory lane in the form of out-of-date responses; too many things in this world go unanswered! But I'm digressing; thanks again, and seeya next year! -Silence 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip
Me and my friend and other guys are trying to improve this article to F.A staus, any hep and suggestion is well accepted, By the way what do you think of the article.? --Philx 16:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)