User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 2

__NOINDEX__

Who rocks?
You do! Great job on Province of Carolina&mdash;I'm going to try to do my share on Province of Georgia when my books come in at the library--everything else is quick and dirty off the web. Anyway, just wanted to compliment you on the awesome work. :) jengod 05:43, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dec's maps are such an unbelieved "added value." I don't know how he does it. But anyway--great job! :) ~j

Salem, MA
I think that even "mistakenly" may be too strong. Someone&mdash;I probably won't time for a while&mdash;needs to check the basic facts about just what took place where. I don't have them off the top of my head. The accused witches did live in Salem Village = Danvers, not Salem, but Salem apparently did play an important role. Dpbsmith 01:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not an authority on this by any means. I just saw some language that didn't seem to clearly express what was intended. It could probably be rewritten without the "mistakenly". Maybe I'll have another go at it. Bkonrad | Talk 01:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your contributions in reverting vandalism. :) R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  01:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Glad I can help. Bkonrad | Talk

McClellands
That would be fine. I recall an Arkansas Senator McClellan, but not a Robert McClelland. Who is he? Adam 16:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia's nomination for admniship
Since my question made you support the nomination, may I ask why you think someone who includes lengthy paragraphs about French and Russian financial interest in Iraq in an encyclopedia entry about George W. Bush should be an admin? Get-back-world-respect 19:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I have not followed the edit wars on GWB very closely. But from what I have seen, C is attempting to preserve some element of fairness and NPOV in the article, which is something I fully support. Even though I despise GWB, I do not think it serves the democratic process or the credibility of Wikipedia to fill the GWB article with all variety of unchallenged slander, conspiracy theories, and half-truths. As I said before, I have had disagreements with C, but I have always found him easy to work with and have been able to reach a reasonable compromise. To me, this is an essential part of achieving NPOV. Bkonrad | Talk 19:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, BTW your question did not make me support him. I had already indicated my support for C's nomination. Your question only prompted me to articulate why.Bkonrad | Talk 19:46, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That does not answer my question why you think someone who includes lengthy paragraphs about French and Russian financial interest in Iraq in an encyclopedia entry about George W. Bush should be an admin. The quote was given in the nomination discussion, you did not have to follow the edit wars on GWB. If you "do not think it serves the democratic process or the credibility of Wikipedia to fill the GWB article with all variety of unchallenged slander, conspiracy theories, and half-truths" you just support my point. But too late now, and hopefully not too much damage will follow. Maybe he has already learned a lesson. Get-back-world-respect 23:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * And what lesson is it you suppose I have learned? Perhaps you have learned that you mounted a major personal campaign against me, and it caused many people to look harder at my nomination and produced a flood of positive votes in addition to the negatives you desired. Cecropia 00:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I really appreciate all the people who supported me. Thanks especially for taking the trouble to explain on the admin page your support after GBWR queried you. Cecropia 12:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You could knock me over with a feather. When I saw that Ed Poor archived the discussion, I thought that someone had finally at least taken the initiative to put this to sleep, but it seems I've been promoted. Thanks again for your kind support! Cecropia 19:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate you
Today is your two-month anniversary on Wikipedia. I would like to nominate you for adminship. Your edit history is admirable but many users feel three months is the minimum. However, fabiform was promoted with only two months under her belt. Let me know if you'd like me to nominate you now or wait a month. moink 23:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * FWIW (one vote), I'd strongly support. jengod 23:42, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the consideration to both of you. I think I would like to wait for now. My wife and I are going to be moving soon (probably early-mid May -- only in-town, so it's not such a big deal, though it'll be our first house--which I'm sure will entail all manner of unexpected things to do), so I really really need to start spending a little less time with Wiki (only temporarily though). I'd be glad to help out with admin stuff, but it's just such not a good time to have another reason to obsess/procrastinate right now. Bkonrad | Talk 00:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok! Remind me in a month if I don't remember.  moink 00:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pantheism
see Talk:World Pantheist Movement

Thee
I changed the thee back and added the Latin tu. Please modify as you see fit. Jondel | Talk

look closer
Sam Spade 22:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pantheism&curid=23590&action=history I reverted to an earlier edit of yours. I didn't like any of what happened. It had spelling errors, innacuracies, and an unnecessary link to a dubious subject pan atheism. Sam Spade 22:26, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say that those adjectives are indeed vital. What other conception of God includes a non-sentient, unconscious, and powerless being? Its offensive to me as a theist, to be frank, and certainly doesn't have enough to do w my conception of God (and I'm a pantheist, BTW) to warrant the use of either God or Pantheist IMO. I think that using it at all, even w such concerned language, is rather forgiving. On the other hand this wasn't the primary motive of my rv, and I am willing to discuss it in more detail if you like. Sam Spade 22:38, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * naturalistic pantheism? Sam Spade 22:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I sense your force is clouded by the sass of the darkside. Walk carefully, young grasshopper. Sam Spade 00:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Am I wrong
'Am I wrong to see this as an attempt to insert POV bias? I might add that the pantheism article also claims that forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism have similarities to pantheism. All of these, by at least some characterizations, could be labelled as "extremely" non-traditional. Who gets to decide what tradition is?'


 * From what I can tell you are simply under read. I don't see you as analyzing information incorrectly, but rather to be making assumptions where you have a lack of information, i.e. inductive reasoning. There was a long and intruiging debate regarding this very issue, the naturalistic pantheist conception of God, and it resolved into what you see on naturalistic pantheism. Once you have read the entirety of that article at least once, and compared it to the web site, and other external links like this, for example, I would be interested in what you have to say about this conception of an unconscious 'god'. When you discuss the concievably non-traditional quality of dharma religions conception of God, I suggest you ponder their antiquity. Sanatana Dharma has the longest proven continuous record of its spirituality, and is the most concentrated of all the worlds major religions (the majority of adherents residing in holy India). In conclusion I apreciate your assistance, but I would ask you to spend the time necessary to analyze these issues of such signifigance to so many. Cheers, and welcome aboard this ship of fools, Sam Spade 01:17, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Green Lake, WI
I've removed the page as per your request. - UtherSRG 19:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks!

Easy, breezy, beautiful
Fixed  :

Feel free to dive into Template:bioguide any old time you want... :) jengod 00:59, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Congress Bioguide
They will correct errors on the bioguide if you give a source. I have the email addresses of the two people (1 house, 1 senate) involved, if you feel a need to update, email me since I promisd I would not post them. The bad news is that the 'older' biographies only get updated or reloaded about once or twice a year. Thanks, Lou I 11:49, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming Fiasco
Thank you for your comment. I am trying to give an intelligent voice to what seems to me a simple and objective issue. Name changes are a part of the political 'scape, and unless some general rule of recognizing reasonable legitimate changes is involved, we allow for a complete halt in any such changes in the future. We essentially say the buck stops here, and no government or even large body of world nations can make a decision to self-determination in important issues such as nomenclature. The public will blindly follow its own fancies regarding facts and diplomacy. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:59, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Equality of treatment on colony
See Talk:Colony

Oregon County
I think you need a quote for this solecism. Wetman 21:29, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * With so many pairs of eyes, you'd think glitches could never slip by! Wetman 21:51, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jesus Christ
Don't worry about it. I've been watching the edit summaries on Talk:Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ on my watchlist for the past week or so, and Chessplayer certainly is pushing his POV. At any rate, I think the question of what to call various scholars is secondary to the question of rearranging the whole article, which I think Chessplayer is, unfortunately, correct to say is in need of serious work. Before I added to the intro, there was no introduction at all to say who Jesus was, other than that he was controversial, which was ridiculous. What do you think of my suggestions re: organization of the article, and also my suggestion to move the article to just plain Jesus? (It's not as though anyone would be confused about other possible Jesuses, is it?) john 02:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer to discuss the whole "historical Jesus" issue last. We should first just discuss what the Gospels say about him, because that's the most important bit of the whole thing, anyway. Jesus is not just an individual like any other about whom to have a biography page, I think. So, discuss the Christian account of his life first. Discuss differences among the different accounts and refer to the pages on each of the gospels. Then I'd say go to the Christian theological issues (although perhaps issues of the second Person of the Trinity should be dealt with at God the Son, or some such, since in most Christian theologies (at least those based on the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), God the Son is rather a more extensive conception than Jesus, who is His Incarnation, or whatever. (Note that I'm saying this from the perspective of an agnostic Jew, as I'm afraid this is starting to make me look religious).  At any rate, once you're done with some cursory discussion of Jesus's role in Christian theology, then get into the more detailed questions about the historical Jesus.  Because, to be honest, the historical Jesus is less important than the other stuff about Jesus.  I think the Buddha article is actually pretty good, but I think the fact that Buddha is conceived as a man, while the most important thing about Jesus is that people believe he's the Son of God. Especially since there's no real information about Jesus's life beyond that given in documents written by people who believed that he was the Son of God. Or whatever. At any rate, a thoroughgoing overhaul is seriously in order. The stuff about how other religions view him should not be mentioned at the beginning of the article, and should be consigned to the sections at the bottom. john 03:17, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naushon Island
Hi there, thanks for tidying up Naushon Island. Good luck with moving. I will also support your adminship nomination once you are done. I liked how you treated the Cecropia affair, although his attempts to turn talk pages into Bush campaign sites    really sicken me. To change the subject for something more enjoyable, once you have moved, would you be interested in a project about learning, especially vocabulary? Please check my page and let me know. Get-back-world-respect 22:34, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * GBWR, sorry for not replying sooner. I was a bit out of sorts over the last few days and could not reply immediately and then forgot about it until now. Re: adminship, thanks, but it's not such a big deal to me. I mean, while I guess some see it as a sort of enhanced status, aside from being able to more easily revert vandalism, I don't see much benefit to being an admin. I'm mostly just interested in writing and editing articles and I can do that whether an admin or not. Re: Cecropia and Bush, I'd rather not get involved. Aside from the Kerry articles, I really don't follow the more politically sensitive articles that closely, so I don't think I can fairly form an opinion without expending a lot of effort. Based on past experience, I'm inclined to give C. the benefit of the doubt--sure he has opinions, but he is willing to compromise in editing articles and on the talk pages, well they are for talking. I don't think I have the time to get involved with a vocabulary project now. My wife has been unsuccessfully trying to get me to learn German for many years now. I guess I just don't have the inclination right now. Good luck with it though, it sounds interesting. older &ne; wiser 15:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Is your wife German? Do you allow her to use your computer 8^p ? Get-back-world-respect 19:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, well mostly. She was born in Australia, but her father was German and they moved backed to Germany when she was 12, so she has native fluency in both German and English (although people say she has an unplaceable accent--a mixture of Oz influence as well as British-influenced English in Germany and also from spending several years in Massachusetts--all resulting in some occasionally interesting and unusual word choices and pronunciations). older &ne; wiser 19:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Say hello to her from me. You did not answer the second question though, if you allow her to use your computer 8^p Maybe she would be willing to teach some German via wikibooks? Sj suggested to start wikibook pages for my vocabulary lists, and I think I will do that soon. Good luck with moving, and do not forget to use bags for your screws and nails and write on them where they are from. I am always too lazy to do that, and last time I wondered why suddenly my cupboard leaned 20° to the west.... Get-back-world-respect 23:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you think "Reportedly, their ties to the opium trade were so great, the Forbes family became known in China during the Opium War in the 19th century as the 'Opium Dynasty' or 'Poppy Dynasty' and also by a poetic turn of phrase: 'The House of Forbes - Rests on Water - Dreams of Opium'." is neutral? Cf. Forbes family Get-back-world-respect 23:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I really don't know. I'm a little skeptical and would like to see some attribution. But since I don't know, I was willing to let it go and just tried to soften it a bit by adding "Reportedly". Sure it's lame, but I didn't feel like researching it. older &ne; wiser 00:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Fortunately the previous editor gave me the justification to delete the whole paragraph. He deleted something else because he claimed it to be "unreferenced statements about reputation". Furthermore, qualifying something as great is a judgement, no information. Get-back-world-respect 01:34, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELERisms
On the Classic Definition of Republic: The Classic definition is what the Founding Fathers intended. What Nebraska instituted was parlimentarianism. A unicameral house is the product of parlimentarianism not a Classic Republic. You are misleading the Term. I wish to direct you to read Principles of Definition. A word means only what it means. Then one can manipulate words all he wants to. Words really have no meaning.WHEELER 14:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of what the Founding Father intended is just that, an interpretation. The very fact that Nebraska instituted a unicameral legislature and that it was accepted by Congress is prima facie evidence that bicameral houses for are not required for state legislatures by the constitution. You can windbag all you want about what you think the Founding Father really intended, but fortunately, the system that they put into place is considerably more flexible than you appear to want it to be. older &ne; wiser 15:04, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Whales
Re arnejons comments on whale song. Arne works at the University of Tromso, about as pro-whaling an place as there is. He is added what I consider a pro-whaling POV to a couple of articles (in particular whaling). I've added the arguments that anti-whaler's use to counteract his arguments. I imagine it leaves me open to accusations of adding/havin an anti-whaling POV (in fact I'm much more pro it than most people in my country but that is not saying much). I'd be interested in your thoughts of the whaling article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Looking at Arne's edits made it clear to me where his interests lie regarding whales. Since I've never had any interaction with him before, I wanted to try and give him the benefit of the doubt, although I really think he intended his remarks as quite deliberate sarcasm aimed. I have to run now, but I'll have a look at the whaling article later. I haven't really thought about whaling much recently (it has pretty much disappeared as a topic from corporate media), but I definitely lean more towards the anti-whaling POV (worked a summer for Greenpeace once in a different lifetime long ago), though not with a great passion (or even much knowledge) at this point in time. older &ne; wiser 19:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Bark River, Michigan
I was going to add that it was on the Bark River (to set up the disambiguation) but I went to check the map first and couldn't find it. It only shows Shaffer and Tesch on or near the river. Of course the online map dates from 1979. Is it on the river? Rmhermen 15:12, May 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't tell for certain. It is very near the River and definitely on a stream that flows into the Bark River--but I can't tell if it is a tributary or one of the main branches. See and  older &ne; wiser 15:28, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Beaver Island
I don't know of a set method for disambiguation - Belle Isle was recently made a disambiguation page with the islands put at pages like Belle Isle (Michigan). Of course that won't work for two islands in Michigan named Beaver. So probably
 * first, political unit -Belle Isle (Michigan)
 * second, body of water - Beaver Island (Lake Superior)
 * third, by smaller political unit -like Beaver Island (Isle Royale National Park) or Beaver Island (Keweenaw County, Michigan) --not sure.

Are there any other Beaver Islands in Lake Superior? Rmhermen 03:27, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that there is a Belle Isle in Isle Royale also - so much for that disambiguation. I always prefered leaving minor things on one page; however, I know that some other users strongly oppose that old practice (and keep breaking up my pages). Rmhermen 03:43, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

US Regions Page Rewrite
I have rewritten the project page and made some clarifacations and renamed some terms. To avoid editing conflicts please do not edit the pages until everyone has had a chance to review it. I have archived the talk pages, so please post your comments there, or at least acknowledge that you have viewd the page and had no comments. Since there were no objections to the non-official (now Non-Census Bureau) regions infoboxes or Davodd's parentage proposal, I have included them in the page.

Please review the page as soon as convenient.

Thanks -JCarriker 21:12, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
I've nominated you for adminship. You should indicate your acceptance, if you so choose. :) -- Decumanus | Talk 05:09, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Treaties
Dude! Move this the main namespace and slap a (or your favorite list-y msg) on it. It's totally useful and important and people will help you enrich it. :) jengod 23:18, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ooh! Shiny!
Thought you might find this interesting and valuable. Most or all should be public domain. jengod 21:13, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Sysop
Congratulations! After getting 100% support on RfA, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela. 22:34, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Mäximus Rex
Mäximus Rex (note the umlaut (ä) on the a) is not me, but an impostor. Maximus Rex 22:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

M-52
Hi. See comment on that talk page. - Taxman 15:09, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

GWB, POV and such
I try to ignore the political articles, if I can. I no longer worry that they'll really influence any votes one way or the other, but I think they make Wikipedia a potential laughingstock as an encyclopedia. I do tend to look at it as all part of the Great Wikiexperiment, but it leaves open how the community can deal or not with a persistent strongly POV editor. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indian POV
Hi Bkonrad, I have added a bunch of reference material in response to your move of my Indian posts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Native_American#comments_and_POV_moved_from_article Well, actually, all of the referecnes releate to the second post about boarding schools and Indian land.

Note: second and first is relative to how they currently appear in the discussion room.

As to the first post about the Land Bridge, since you didn't disagree with the content but only with the format, we can tackle that without additional references?? Besides, there is just really too much stuff there right now to be able to deal with both topics. How can we split off to a seperate page??

I look forward to your response.
 * ErikFP 17:17, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Beaver Island
Hmm. Fair enough. I'm pondering the fact that the page appears to mention two different island called Beaver Island, and they are both in Michigan! How do we handle that? Morwen - Talk 18:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

U.S Regions change.
I was editing the U.S. Regions page when, I noticed that something didn't look quite right in the participants section. Bkonrad who that? Then I realized it's you! I've made a minor adjustment to the list, I hope you approve. :)

-JCarriker 09:13, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

John Brown
You said that it should be "fugitive slave". I never did like that designation as it implies that such person is properly a slave. IMHO, this need more talk involving several people. Meanwhile I will talk to a proffessional librarian to see why they say "fl".

Thanks

Wikkrockiana 22:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Republic of Winston"
I put a delete tag there right after you deleted it, so it's still there. >_< -- Grunt 02:33, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

Beaver Island (Falkland Islands)
Thanks for your note. As you may have noticed, I prefer using the comma notation for disambiguation islands, but as I seem to be in a minority I'll try to use brackets in future. Warofdreams 19:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)