User talk:Aecis/Messages 73-84

Dutch language
Hello, I wondered whether you could help me with a translation of an acronym that's used here? I'm wondering about: Wieteke Cramer (1.500m) uitzending o.v.b., as I'm not quite sure what o.v.b. means. Thanks for any help you can give! Sam Vimes 13:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) *goes back to writing Netherlands at the 2006 Winter Olympics* Sam Vimes 13:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like Peter Mueller has an easier job in picking the Norwegian team. ;) Thanks for all the help - I'll try to work some of it into the article, though I'll imagine the site will be updated some time before the Olympics and I can use the official selection then. Sam Vimes 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again: This article appears to have something, at least about van der Star. I can't figure out whether it was good enough or not, though... Sam Vimes 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Booren
Thanks for the note about the Booren et al sockpuppets. I had seen related material to that which lead me to think the users were in fact sock puppets. The source of Booren's messages were my giving him the blatantvandal warning, just before reporting the matter to interventions against vandalism. I'm glad to see the issue is being taken care of, and thanks for the link. --Hansnesse 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wennemars
Argh! I got that confused with the World Sprint championships, which he didn't qualify for despite being defending champion (which the commentators didn't fail to pick up on). Then somehow my brain must have made the connection that he failed to qualify for the 1500 at the Olympics as well. Thanks for fixing it! Sam Vimes 17:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Zwolle
Oh, I see you did want the images side by side, just not in separate columns. Looks like you got it though. The links you are talking about can be done as follows:

Basically, using two columns in each of two rows to get everything lined up properly, but then using 'border: 0' to suppress the lines and make it look like one box. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 17:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a small change to line up the pieces of the box. Basically just needed a couple of row identifiers ('|-'). --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

List of sovereign states
When protecting pages because of edit wars, we (as administrators who often do page protection) do not favor one version or the other. If I reverted to another version and protected it, the other party would come complaining about me having protected the wrong version. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dana Andrews said prunes gave him the runes and passing them used lots of skills
Sorry, only Phroziac is allowed to delete that page.

Better luck next time. Kurt Weber 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user
We're nothing if not consistent! Cheers, --Fire Star 17:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you accept invitations to comment on an RFC?
Please advise. Thank you. |||MilesD. |||02-1-2006 22:55 (UTC)

Presentation as equivalency
Without mentioning lack of violent and intolerant response on the part of Muslims vs. the cartoons, there is an air of equivalency granted between the excessive, intolerant, and narrowmindedness of Muslim response and responses of other religious groups. It is pertinent to note that, while Muslims are rioting and shooting over this issue, murdering film-makers in the street, Christians and Jews are not so doing. To refuse to note this difference is to imply that the Muslim response is morally equivalent to not firing upon consulates. It is important to note the difference in response--these difference are not trivial nor insignificant. To pretend equivalence is to approve of extremist Muslim response.Dogface 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you are of the opinion that it is NOT a fact that Jews didn't assault a British, French, or German consulate. You are of the opinion that it is NOT a fact that Monty Python's members didn't go into hiding for fear of their lives after "Life of Bryan". You are of the opinion that it is NOT a fact that the makers of "Last Temptation of Christ" were not murdered on the street like Van Gogh. Okay, show me when Jews assaulted the consulates in response to a cartoon. Show me the murdered makers of "Last Temptation of Christ".Dogface 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, it only stands to reason that those "other events" ought not be mentioned at all, except as a bare link to independent Wikipedia articles. These "other events" should simply be deleted. Otherwise, to blandly mention them without noting the lack of violent response is to imply moral equivalence between the targets of those "other events" and people who fire upon consulates. Therefore, delete mention of those "other events", since the response to them is "not pertinent" in an article that is entirely about a response to a religiously offensive publication. The events are, likewise, not pertinent. Dogface 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

When the entire point of an article is the response of a certain group at a certain time to a certain stimulus, it is highly pertinent to mention responses of other groups at other times to similar stimuli. Otherwise, there is no point to reporting the other stimuli.

If I write a paper about lead (Pb) modifying a specific gene's expression and mention other heavy metals in that paper, it behooves me to mention those metals' effects upon that gene or other genes, since no gene exists in a vacuum (much as no culture exists in a vacuum) to increase overall understanding, it is good practice to mention situations wherein similar stimuli produced similar response in other genes and when similar stimul did not produce a similar response in other genes. Otherwise, mention of those other metals (stimuli) is irrelevant to the paper as a whole. Indeed, mentioning the responses is nothing other than good scientific practice. Refusing to mention responses while mentioning the other metals is bad scientific practis. Am I to take it that good scientific practice is foreign to an encyclopedia? Excluding the responses to the other stimuli in the social arena is equally as bad practice. Failing to mention the responses of other groups (genes) to similar stimulu (other heavy metals) renders mention of the other stimuli entirely irrelevant.Dogface 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Silly-not-to
I noticed you've just deleted Silly-not-to. Could you possibly protect it as well? Check the deletion log; the guy has re-created the page many, many times. StarryEyes 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it is protected! Thanks. StarryEyes 15:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I (along with a few other users)am the creator of the 'silly not to' article. As a new user I have only just found my talk page full of people saying that they have deleted it- it was my presumtion that my submitting simply wasnt working, hence my persistance. Having read this i can appreciate your irritation. On the AfD page for silly not to, a consensus was reached that until references had been found, the article should be deleted. (Sadly some users seemed to be deleting any fabourable comments). I have subsequently found two references in genuine and currently published books to verify the silly-not-to article. I added these, and re-instated the page, as with references, there is no reason why silly not to should not have an article. If you check the log you will see some recreations were carried out by persons other than myself. LeCrawf

Randomness (ninjas)
Aye, mate! Thanks fer movin' me randomness page to me user page. I din't even know ye could do that! Flameviper12 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)