User talk:Algorithme

Dppowell (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits in article 'Erotic Lactation'
Hi Algorithme, Thank you for the several critical comments in the article Erotic Lactation which I all support. So..., OK, for the statement Because female breasts and nipples are normally an important part of sexual activity (section 'Motivation') probably a citation isnt't really needed ;-) However, the article had better times ago and I hope I will experience this again. --Fritz Bollmann (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

C T Russell
I notice you've restored the ref for the cite that was dead the three times I checked it, and that the link is working again. It seems to be a self-published website of an individual though, so I'm not sure it meets the criteria for a reliable source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, when I checked the link Tuesday, it was not working; but it came back to work afterwards. It is a page of the New England Institute of Religious Research's website (About NEIRR). They are a group whose goal tends to Religious Studies (called in German Religionswissenchaft or 'Science of Religion'), a matter that is ideally scientific, even the group is connected to some religion. Although the Pyramidology page is already very informative, I think 's page brings some balance to the subject (symbology of the pyramid near Russell's gravesite). --Algorithme (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell, you wrote: "Which is the relationship of a cross to the Jehovist thought?"

Perhaps you were unaware that "Jehovist" can be a pejorative reference to Jehovah's Witnesses. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My intention was not to sound offensive, and I would not be an editing user of Wikipedia if I did not know what pejorative means. In Portuguese (my native language, which I almost do not use on the Web) there is the equivalent word jeovista (Castilian |Spanish| jehovista) and it does not suggest an offense. Would you mind to explain me your specific usage of the term? --Algorithme (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you mean "explain the English language usage of the term"?


 * For most of its existence, the word "Jehovist" has applied to a particular matter of Hebrew scholarship, of interest primarily to Jews. When antisemitic Nazis and Stalinists used the term "Jehovists" in reference to Jehovah's Witnesses, likely it was partially from ignorance but largely to imply some connection with Judaism. Scholarly works do not refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as "Jehovists" because JWs are not Jehovists (at least not according to the original non-pejorative use of the term, as it relates to the particular matter of Hebrew scholarship).


 * It is not JWs who have documented the pejorative use of the term, but non-Witness scholars. I don't care enough to dig up the references or argue with those who consciously choose to use pejoratives. My intention was only to politely inform you of something you may not have realized.


 * --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about the English language usage (because there are tools like Dictionary.com), but your organization's. I have read some books on world religions that called you people Jehovist, for your high esteem of the Tetragrammaton, i.e., your proneness to pronounce it and that repeatedly. Anyways, you have explained your understanding of the term, for what I am grateful. --Algorithme (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have an organization with a particular usage of the term "Jehovists". I use the term consistently with its definition at Dictionary.com, Wiktionary, and other secular references.


 * What do you mean by "you people"?


 * How is it you claim familiarity with the extent to which I may or may not esteem the Tetragrammaton?


 * It might be better if you make fewer assumptions.


 * --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By 'you people' I meant Jehovah's Witnesses. Are you not one of them? I assumed you were, for your edits on specific topics and for the absence of a self-description on your user page. It was not exactly an assumption, nevertheless; it was thinking rapidly. If you are not, I am sorry.
 * Let me ameliorate my words. Those books I spoke of call the JWs Jehovist for their proneness to say 'God's actual name is Jehovah. Jehovah is his name, and it must be used rather than other ones' every time they visit an unbeliever (myself included). The definition you have given me of the term is not so comprehensive. Dear AuthorityTam, words do not have just the meanings exposed on dictionary x or y: words are life, they are not static — even as to an encyclopedia.
 * I am majoring in Mathematics. I do not enjoy unfounded stuff. Have a good morning.
 * --Algorithme (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In my May 28 message, I said that "Jehovist" can be a pejorative, not that it always is. I'm sorry too, that this seems to have weighed on you.


 * The term "Jehovist" has been used to refer to anyone who champions the name Jehovah. I hope that connotation overwhelms the negative one during my lifetime.


 * Incidentally, JWs do not insist that the name Jehovah "must be used rather the other ones every time" as you say. In fact, Witnesses routinely refer to Him as God, Father, and Lord. Witnesses simply believe that the Creator prefers his worshippers to use a respectful form of the Name (Jah, Yahweh, Yehowah, Yah) over a mere title such as God or Lord. Among respectful forms of the Name, it's true that English-speaking JWs have settled on "Jehovah" for reasons of tradition and consistency, but their publications certainly don't insist that anyone reject other respectful pronunciations or spellings. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Portuguese-speaking Witnesses pronounced the Name identically as English-speaking Witnesses.


 * --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Goa and Goa Velha
You seem to be confused about these locations. In this edit, you added the coordinates of Goa Velha to Old Goa. Similarly, in this edit, you removed the correct coordinates for Goa Velha. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_41#Old_Goa/Goa_Velha/Velha_Goa. regards, --Kjetil_r 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not mistaken on the distinction from Velha Goa to Goa Velha. Google Earth's Places layer show a Goa Velha icon a few meters from the new coordinates you put to Old Goa (15.50238°N, 73.91175°W) and it links to the Goa Velha article. I did not perceive they had already corrected the coordinates on Goa Velha. Regards! --Algorithme (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Boaz e Jachin: imagem
Me explique por favor... porque motivo tirou a imagem que eu próprio carreguei para o artigo Boaz e Jachim... Nem fala na categoria da imagem, porque se for necessário, eu mesmo mudo a categoria... Obrigado. Lightwarrior2 (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Tua imagem não é cabível em Boaz and Jachin. Para que ela esteja no corpo de um artigo, é necessário que haja um conteúdo verbal bastante desenvolvido sobre. Pode-se permiti-la com, se ela estiver (não apenas) na subcategoria 'Boaz and Jachin: derived contexts'. --Algorithme (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mas será que poderá entao me ajudar na modificação da categoria...?!? Não fui eu que pus aquela legenda que vc viu na imagem... se for ver no histórico do artigo, irá ver sim, que pus a imagem no topo da página... porém, irá ver que houve uma mudança no seguinte status como : " (Moving image... this belongs more to the "derived contexts" area... for the ariticle's first picture we should probably use an artists conception of the actual pillars) por uma outro pessoal,então.. a minha idéia seria apenas transmitir ao público em geral, o que é as Torres... Vé só... o artigo já é tão pequeno... e mesmo assim... tirou a imagem por isso..?! :-( Lightwarrior2 (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lê minha resposta para Talk:Boaz and Jachin. Tua 'legenda', que não citava fontes (fidedignas), era tão extensa que não poderia ser considerada como tal. Observei que tua imagem (verifique seu estado atual) está posta em alguns idiomas da Wikipedia e de maneira inadequada, o que não tolero. Qualquer pesquisador sério entende que as Colunas não eram maçônicas. --Algorithme (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Então...tem alguma ideia senhor, em que artigo esta imagem poderia ser inserida?!? Lightwarrior2 (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sugiro (de novo) pô-la num artigo específico (que teria de ser produzido) sobre a interpretação que a maçonaria tem das Colunas, ou num sobre Grant Schar, o ilustrador do livro onde o desenho foi publicadado (basta clicar o link vermelho para começar). Der Compaß der Weisen é raro; não encontrei um sequer download dele. Eu precisaria ler o contexto onde a figura está no livro para que desse ao senhor uma resposta melhor. Talvez aceitem a imagem no corpo de um artigo que remeta a uma das categorias em que a imagem está no Commons (exceto o esboço de artigo Boaz and Jachin ou equivalente noutro idioma). Observe que já pus um link indireto a ela no artigo das Colunas. --Algorithme (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Summer from The Four Seasons (Poussin)
Please stop making inflammatory statements in edit reviews as you did here. What you write (a) contradicts the source (b) is just WP:DONTLIKEIT (c) is a completely false generalization about "every Jew" (d) would apply to the article Arch of Titus itself. You could be blocked if you make further attempts to remove the detail of the frieze, carefully sourced material by Anthony Blunt, or make similar inflammatory statements. Mathsci (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood me. My intention is not to be "inflammatory" neither 'removing the detail of the frieze'. The passage says "further back a group of five horses can be seen, excecuted in the classical style of the triumphal arches of Ancient Rome". The Arch of Titus is not supposed to be the only one of them; that does not contradict the reference of Anthony Blunt. That very arch in a section which intends to portray or to praise Boaz and Ruth, two major people of the Hebrew Bible, is inconvenient. There is an entire book in the Bible (Lamentations of Jeremiah) that laments the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II at 586 BCE, per instance. On the other hand, the Arch of Titus accomplishes lauding the "triumph" that was destructing Jerusalem at 70 BCE and causing the Diaspora. Israel came back to be an official nation just in 1948, almost 1900 years after that horrendous "triumph". I said "every Jew would abominate"; it is conditional. They should. If one considers that the Arch of Titus is a good example because it is widely-known, I suggest a reference to it instead an image; at least for a while, before an image of other arch with a similar feature is found (case in which I think omitting the Arch of Titus would be better off). --Algorithme (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Erotic Lactation edits?
I wonder, how the hell are you supposed to have a practical knowledge about any part of sexuality, if you are Asexual? No offence man, but things like "female breasts and nipples are normally an important part of sexual activity" do not need any citization, becouse for normal, sexually active people it is an obvious thing. If you are to edit such pages, you should have at least experienced it/have a practical knowledge. What more, books should NOT be treated as the only one source of knowledge, especially about sex and things connected with it. Wikipedia is also a source of human-experienced knowledge, books are not always the best! P.S. Sorry for my language, i'm from Poland. 188.33.72.149 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not need to reply someone who has not the dignity to identify themself.--Algorithme (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Volcatius Sedigitus: wikification and cleanup
Hi Algorithme, In response to your rollback of my placing cleanup templates on Volcatius Sedigitus, I have posted an overview of the things I feel need work on the talk page. Hopefully it will be specific enough. Cheers! – The Fiddly Leprechaun ·  Catch Me!  18:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! I have posted my reply onto the respective talk page. Regards! --Algorithme (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet
Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

edit to Septuagint
Hi Algorithme, I'm asking you about a pretty old edit here, but in hopes you remember! A question has been asked at Reference_desk/Humanities about a mention of a gothic G as an abbreviation for the Septuagint. You were the one who added the mention to the article diff, so I'm hoping you can clear up the question. If you could respond at the Reference Desk that would be fantastic. Many thanks, 184.147.128.46 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)