User talk:Anchoress/Archive02

"Female sexuality" article
Regarding female sexuality: this article is really only a stub. It's intended to be a start of expanding the human sexuality coverage, keeping human sexuality as an overview of all of the forms of human sexuality, and using female sexuality and male sexuality to work on the aspects which are typically more specific to women and men respectively (but without, I hope, resorting to mere stereotyping). It's a huge topic, and the current version is rather poor -- please feel free to revise it as you see fit. A start on male sexuality would be nice, too. -- The Anome 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons
Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not equate the publication of a cartoon with sexual assault; it's an insult to people who have endured that particular physical violation.--Anchoress 01:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Anchoress. Thank you for your kind words and the barnstar. I appreciate it. It is encouraging me to continue in the efforts I was making. Peace. Metta Bubble 10:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The following paragraph contains sentence fragments I can't decipher:


 * The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, called it "cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression," according to the official WAM news agency. "The repercussions of such irresponsible acts will have adverse impact on international relations." In Tunisia, Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, president of the Islamic Organization for Education, Science and Culture (the Islamic world's counterpart to UNESCO) called the drawings "a form of racism and discrimination that one must counter by all available means." He said, "It's regrettable to state today, as we are calling for dialogue, that other parties feed animosity and hate and attack sacred symbols of Muslims and of their prophet," said also Jordan's largest circulation daily, government-run Al-Rai, said the Danish government must apologize. [53]

It's hard to check since the citations seem to be out of order. I'd fix them myself but I really, really, really don't know how.--Anchoress 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

that is the source : --Unfinishedchaos 14:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus as "he who must not be named"
Curious: Where did you hear that In the Jewish annals of notable Jews, Jesus is referred to as 'He Who Must Not be Named'? I've never heard this referred to before, and Google doesn't seem to corroborate much either. Do you know what 'annals' make the reference? -Joshuapaquin 02:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never read it myself, I heard it from a girlfriend.--Anchoress 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually a Judaic tradition that the name of God is "ineffable" and "not to be read aloud" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh)... Christianity is fond of adopting Jewish concepts and applying them to Jesus, as Christians believe that the expected Jewish Messiah was actually Jesus and therefore they have a right to culturally appropriate Judaic beliefs. By the way, thanks for the feedback on the robert pickton comment that I made... nice to not feel like I'm typing into a vacuum, and to hear from Vancouver editors...--fennel
 * No that's not it at all, actually fennel. My friend who told me about this is an Orthodox Jew, she has no interest in Christianity. She says that in Jewish historical texts, there is a list of notable Jews going back thousands of years. It lists honourable and notorious people. The most notorious is Jesus, and he is so despicable that he is never named. He's just called 'he who must not be named'.--Anchoress 09:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I hadn't heard that before... It is also true that Christianity often attributes Judaic perspectives about God to Jesus... I've heard the term "Adonai" and other Jewish religious terminology used by Evangelical Christians in reference to Jesus, usually in songs in church... as well as the commonly heard Evangelical Christian teaching that the Jewish Messiah was in fact Jesus... I grew up in that context. It is also Judaic tradition that the name of God must not be spoken out loud, as described on the wikipedia page titled Yahweh that I referenced above. So there's a Jewish reason for Jesus to be referred to as "He Who Must Not Be Named", and a different Evangelical Christian reason for same. Complicated!--fennel
 * Well we're all learning like sons of guns. I was already very familiar with the prescription in Judaism against saying G-d's name, but (despite knowing a lot of ECs as well) I have never heard of a prescription against using His name in Christianity.--Anchoress 06:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because there definately isn't one. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus's name is a taboo in Jewish culture though. And Christians appropriate Jewish beliefs because Christian theology teaches that Christianity is really just Judaism that didn't refuse to accept Jesus as the accepted messiah. I never really "got" they Jewish side... they worship a God of love and when Jesus comes along preaching forgiveness and love rather than the draconian theocracy that the religious leaders of the time were pushing, and he claims the title of the messiah, and doesn't violently overthrow Rome, they crucify him! What were they expecting, fire and brimstone? o_o --⁪froth T C  23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a myth. The Talmud is replete with references to Yeshua. --Dweller 12:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My friend isn't talking about the Talmud. She says there's a list of notable Jews, thousands of years old, and Jesus is kind of the Timothy McVey of Jewish history. I mean, she lives in Israel and she's very, very religious, and she says nobody in the Orthodox community ever says Jesus' name, it's like if you hear his name you spit on the ground in disgust because of what a horrible seditionist he was.--Anchoress 12:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As Jesus was only born 2000 years ago, the list can't be that old and it must post-date (and be massively less notable than) the Talmud. I'm interested to know more; please ask your friend what the list is. Perhaps there's some confusion with "Christ" going on here... observant Jews won't refer to Jesus as "Christ", because the name means "annointed one", i.e. Messiah; Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I frequently move in Orthodox (and very Orthodox) Jewish circles - the most radical expression of this that I've encountered is for people to insist on calling him by his Hebrew, Talmudic name. I've never heard of referring to Jesus in a Voldemort-type manner. Can I respectfully ask that you remove this comment from your user page? Even if it's true, it does come across as sneering and you seem like far too nice a person to be willfully indulging in sneering. --Dweller 12:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey listen, I don't want to cause any stress here. If I remember to I'll ask her about it, we never went into details. I doubt there's been any 'confusion' over terms, but what do I know? As to my comment on my userpage, I definitely didn't mean it in a 'sneering' way and I ask that you let go of having that interpretation of it.--Anchoress 12:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's no problem for me, I'm quite broad-minded. I'm just saying how it can be read. Anyway, please do ask your friend... I'd love to learn more about the list and who's on it! (I suspect just a teensy bit of POV!) --Dweller 13:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'll ask if I remember. And of course it's POV, I wouldn't expect it to be anything else.--Anchoress 13:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, btw does "I definitely didn't mean it in a 'sneering' way" mean "no I won't remove the comment from my user page"? --Dweller 13:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. :-)--Anchoress 13:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)



Wikipedia needs more editors like you. Thanks for the chat. Please do drop me a note at my Talk page if you get that reference. --Dweller 13:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will if I remember, cheers.--Anchoress 13:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're too kind.
I didn't write my userpage in order to please others, but since I apparently have, I'm glad. Thanks for the compliment. :) -Kasreyn 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Inclusionist userbox
User incl &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 11:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks.--Anchoress 11:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote
This is a reply to your question for your article. I apologize that I am unable to assist you, I deal primarily in corporate and copyright law. I tried looking around a bit throguh NY laws and found this: A person  is  guilty  of  incest when he or she marries or engages in  sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual  conduct  with  a  person  whom  he  or  she  knows  to  be  related  to him or her, either legitimately or out of wedlock, as an ancestor, descendant, brother  or  sister  of  either  the  whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or  niece. Incest is a class E felony.

Which may be of use and seems to be in line with the other quote. I recommend you look around and don't post something untill you can credit to a reliable source. Once again, I apologize that I am unable to be of greater assistance. --Arthus 00:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lou
Please, please, please don't encourage him (which is all that taunting him will do). I was thisclose to reverting your comment as trolling, but while I think it's borderline, I'm not sure that it's quite enough to justify my interfering with another user's comment on another user's talk page.

I know that he's irritating, and I know that it's tempting to lay into him, but a) it's not nice and b) it'll just make him more determined to try to screw things up however he can manage to do so, wasting everyone else's time in the process. Every frustration that he encounters just makes him more determined that he's right and everyone else on Wikipedia is wrong, and that he should do something about it. I'm not saying don't comment on his page at all if you really have something to say, but try to keep it calm and civil.

Thanks.

Hbackman 06:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think my message lacked calmness or civility, and I definitely think you did the right thing not 'reverting...as trolling', because I think that would have been incorrect and over-zealous. --Anchoress 06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As another third party&mdash;yeah, it really did look like you were snapping your fingers under Lou's nose. Don't kick him while he's down.  If he's going to self-destruct on the wiki, allow him to do it without assistance.  I'll be the first in line to block him if he steps over the line of his paroles, but I won't tolerate gratuitious incivility and taunting directed at him because he's vulnerable.  Please don't do it again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinion noted. FWIW I don't think I was being incivil, much less 'gratuitously incivil' (whatever that means), but I'll take the suggestions anyway. I just think it's great that he's spreading the word (literally) about cocksucking. I mean, especially since IMO no self-respecting 14 year old (even a gay one) would be caught dead reading a scholarly article on homosexuality, I think it's a real public service that Lou is making the word cocksucker available to so many more people through his repeated comments on the article in different locations on WP. But I certainly will take the suggestions of the posters here and lay off. :-)--Anchoress 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for no reversion
I hadn't checked my talkpage for a few days and missed your Robert Falcon Scott request, so thanks for dealing with it for me. -- Xyra  e  l  T 08:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No probs, thanks for the note.--Anchoress 10:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Weird creature
I saw this in a townhouse park in Richmond, just behind the strip mall at #2 and Blundell. I may take a walk this weekend with a camera to see if I can get a photo...it really was pretty bizarre looking. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 04:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's so strange. I'd love to see a pic.--Anchoress 05:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Third-wave feminism
While it does need expansion, it doesn't need it so badly that it warrants the article being defaced for the indefinite future. Moreover, tagging it isn't likely to be very helpful, because it's unlikely to attract the sort of help this article is going to need to improve (essentially, someone with a PhD or above in gender studies). Rebecca 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I disagree with your wording (defacement) and your reasoning, but as I said on the talk page of the article I won't get into a fight about it. I do think, however, that your attitude constitutes a dis-service to WP editors (assuming that the tag will attract more disruptive editors than helpful ones), and to visitors wanting to be informed about the topic as per WP's stated purpose for being.--Anchoress 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will attract more disruptive editors than helpful ones. It's more that it's not going to attract anyone at all with the capability of actually expanding this, and that in that case, it really isn't helpful at all to have an ugly banner that serves no purpose except to state the bleeding obvious. I'd love to see the article expanded, but short of doing a PhD on the subject, there isn't much I can do about that escept wait. Rebecca 09:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts marked as minor
If you're reverting vandalism, it's perfectly all right to mark a revert as minor; this is why admins' rollbacks are automatically marked as minor. If you're reverting a very minor edit, then it's good courtesy not to mark your revert as minor, but it's not that big a deal (though this latter part is just my opinion). All reverts regarding disputed content (e.g. not formatting/spelling/vandalism/etc.) should never be marked minor. HTH, Johnleemk | Talk 05:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I thought; thank you very much for the info.--Anchoress 06:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ann Furedi and BPAS merge
You wrote on my talk page: Hi: you removed the merge tag from the Ann Furedi side. I'm sorry if I've used the wrong template for the tag, but I don't think it's such a good idea to just remove the tag, since then people reading that article won't know the merge is being proposed and therefore won't be able to contribute their views. If there's a better tag to use (I've seen the one I placed used on both sides of a merger), could you put it up? Or at least explain your actions on the talk page so people will know what's going on with the Merge talk? Thanks in advance.--Anchoress 09:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I fear you have misunderstood my action. Both articles were tagged with the mergefrom template, thus implying that each article would be merged into the other, which is not an applicable option (incidentally if the merge template had been used instead there would not have been this problem). I therefore checked the discussions and it seemed that they implied that the intended option was that the article for Ann Furedi, which is quite short, should be merged into that for BPAS which is rather longer. Maybe if you read this it will explain the situation better than I can. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I misunderstood your action; I didn't ascribe any ill-intent to it, I inferred from your edit summary that you thought - since the merge was proposed *from* Ann to BPAS - the merge template on Ann was wrong. I believe I said in my original post to you that I assumed I'd just put up the wrong template and I'm sorry for that, but I just thought it was inappropriate to leave the article with *no* merge template. That opinion stands, without prejudice.--Anchoress 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for putting up the new template. I'm assuming it was you?--Anchoress 10:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, there was never actually any time when there was no template once you had added one: check the article history. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol... well there wasn't one, that was how I knew to post on your page. I went to the page three separate times around the time I posted to your page (once before and twice soon after). Then all of a sudden it appeared. I'm not saying the history is lying, but I promise you there was no template (at least visible). :-)) Belive me, that's why I went to your page to comment.--Anchoress 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Must be a caching thing, because if you look at this, it's the revision before you added the tag. If you step through with the "next revision" links—right under the timestamp which is right under the title—the next revision is where you added the tag, and the next is where I changed it: you will find that if you step through all the way to the current revision, there is always a tag. This is one reason we advise people to get to know about how to clear your cache (which fixes "the undesired and confusing result that after making a change you still see the old version of a page" amongst other things). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Content Issue with Atkins Nutritional Approach
Anchoress, I want to thank you for putting your two cents in on this ridiculous argument. I apologize for doing so on the discussion page of the article but for some reason, Tom feels as if I'm deleting his links and want my added. Which is not the case. I posted in discussion to see what many felt about including links for support forums and Tom took it as an attack. I was actually speaking on behalf of all support forums. Is there some way we can put this issue to vote among admins so that this issue is cleared up? At this point, I'm following policy by deleting support forum links, but I would like to know what everyone else thinks and hopefully we can add a section for these links in the future for people that want to learn more.

Tom's attacks are based on what is a long standing fued on his part and I apologize for it rearing it's ugly head on Wikipedia BrianZ 06:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi BrianZ. Well, here goes. First, unlike message boards, admins here don't have the ability to make or change policy, and they don't usually get involved in content disputes. I'm not an admin, but I've seen enough discussion about it in various places to know that it often comes up on certain pages. I think the best thing to do is to keep removing the links that contravene policy. We have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to get help, and no matter how much we'd like to give people useful outside links to help them, we may not be able to if they contravene policy. I believe that it might be worthwhile for you to post a request for comment or a request for mediation, and maybe some outside eyes can come in and comment; they might be able to find a way to give both you guys what you want, or they may just tell both of you to cool off and go edit something else. WP seems to have been built on a policy of de-escalation; it's common for people to be advised to back off from an issue they feel passionate/obstinate about. Hope this helps.--Anchoress 07:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I'll do that. I think Tom is just unable to see that we both want the same thing. He is just arguing and trying to make me look poorly because he's unable to comprehend what I'm saying. I feel it's my fault too, I guess I'm not writing clearly enough. :) Thanks BrianZ 14:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert piercing
Hi, I reverted and sightly fiddled with the PA article to show that urine really is sterile - as the norm, anyway. --kylet 09:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool. I was going to do it in a day or two if nobody objected. Thanks!!--Anchoress 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't really think it was a subject for discussion, the editor who stated urine is not sterile was... wrong. --kylet 16:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You HAte yet love?
Gordon Campbell? I dislike politcally amd dispise, but hate? Hate's wrong. I also dispise the crooks you "love."

Hate for things? Hypocrisy? I agree 100%; but this conflicts with your "Love" category,

--G-Spot 14:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

PS...Don't blame me, I voted Buday -- moi
 * YAWN. You're boring. Go be boring somewhere else.--Anchoress 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on user pages ...
I'm afraid Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of Fair Use images on user pages, such as the Tito portrait you use (Image:Tito-portret-jovanovic.jpg). We're only supposed to use unlicensed images under the Fair Use defense under US copyright law within articles where a strong fair use rationale can be provided and there is no free alternative. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me, since some other user added it without my knowledge, consent or wish. I just left it cuz I have a policy of not removing anything people add. But if it contravenes FU, I'd be glad to be rid of it. Delete away. :-))--Anchoress 16:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick reply
Really appreciate the information --Zeraeph 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * NP, good luck with it.--Anchoress 13:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comment
I don't care how the article goes personally. What I really want is for the bickering to end in a peaceful way with as few people getting upset as possible. Crazyswordsman 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No probs. I love the dispassionate application of logic in all its forms.--Anchoress 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Electricity question
haha.. infact, i blanked your page specifically to acknoledge i had read your reply (and it worked).. and reverting it is obviously no sweat. i was also waiting to hear more from another user.

cheers 137.122.14.20 02:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

it's User:Adam the atom i forgot to sign in.
 * Hmmm, ok... maybe one day we'll speak the same language.--Anchoress 02:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)