User talk:Noosphere/Archive 4

Requests for arbitration/Election
This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Category Philosopher
Greetings, please visit Category_talk:Philosophers sometime. I've made a suggestion and would like to request your feedback. Thanks, Universitytruth 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

:W: talk

 * Talk pages are for discussion of the article and information that could be used to improve it, not casual discussion of the subject matter. Your talk post could not conceivably help improve the article. If you think Rudy lost his touch after edead, bring it up on wumpscut forums. Schicksal 05:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would improve the article if someone could explain what happened to him after ED. -- noosph e re 05:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. That is a SUBJECTIVE (it means an opinion) view of Rudy/Wumpscut.  Not only does it not belong on the article page, having your retarded opinion on the article's talk is just taking up space and promoting idiocy. --John Cho 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is subjective? Whether he got married or had some other life-changing event?  And calling my opinion "retarded" certainly doesn't sound like the model of NPOV.  Anyway, since when did anything on the talk page have to be objective?  -- noosph e re 05:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "calling my opinion "retarded" certainly doesn't sound like the model of NPOV..." Neither was your implication of Rudy Ratzinger's supposed musical decadence. Keep it off the Talk Page. LaLutteAvecCecil 05:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, point me to a policy requiring objectivity on talk pages and I'll gladly adhere to it. -- noosph e re 05:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is your opinion was in fact retarded. This is not a point of view but rather the fact of the matter.  Also, your so called "harmless views" on the talkpage of the Wumpscut article is the opposite of progressive, something not needed on today's vandal-filled Wikipedia.


 * You are being no better than a troll, a troll of Rudy Fatsinger's works. Stop it now.  Thanks. --John Cho 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Rudy Fatsinger"? And you're calling me a troll?  Anyway, what you think of my opinion is irrelevant.  -- noosph e re 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a mistake, sorry. I forgot Rudy's last name and meant to put Ratzinger.  Besides, what the HELL does making fun of his name have to do with not filling an article with subjective opinions?


 * I did not touch the article. I asked a question on the talk page, which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, has no requirment for maintaining NPOV that I'm aware of.  If you think it does, please point out where in WP's policy it says that.  -- noosph e re 05:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You clearly stated "someone should add why Rudy fucking sucks after EMBRYODEAD YOU WILL GO MAD!! to the Wumpscut article." That is far from wanting an NPOV. --John Cho 05:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked why W's music became shitty after ED. Perhaps this can be explained in an objective manner.  For example, perhaps he was in an accident, or converted to Christianity.  These events can be described completely objectively.  -- noosph e re 05:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You honestly can't be serious with your last comment. Subjective reporting in an objective package is propaganda.  Are you saying your propaganda needs to be addressed on the Wumpscut article?  This is rediculous. --John Cho 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I sincerely believe that objectively describing what happened to him after ED would improve the article. Your opinion might be that he got a million times better after ED.  Fine.  Why?  What happened?  Because clearly something did.  His style changed completely.  It was like W became a whole new band.  Why?  Was there a significant change in Rudy's life?  -- noosph e re 05:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Rules lawyering is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Regardless of the policy involved, you should see in retrospect how useless your comment was, and do the courtesy of not reverting it. Even if there were tangible references for Rudy's music being bad post Embryodead, it would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Some of the most popular :W: works, works which rated highly on the DAC, and got some of the most club play, came out after Embryodead. BJF is sonically and texturally very similar to edead, and I do not think that anyone listening to both in succession would think they were different bands. In short, your comment was just inappropriate, but since you think it deserves to be there, I'll leave it. You can't honestly tell me it's helpful to the article, though. Schicksal 05:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article wouldn't have to describe the quality of W's music. It could, however, describe what happened (objectively speaking) to Rudy after ED, if something did.  I think that would be of general interest.  And if you think BJF is so similar to ED or earlier W, please show me a song he did that was similar to Ich Will Dich.  But this is really going off on a tangent, as I am really not interested in arguing the merits of W's late phase.  I am only interested in finding out what happened to him after ED.


 * And I don't share your opinion that my comment was useless. Perhaps someone else who reads it might have some insight in to Rudy's life that you don't and can answer my question to the benefit of all.  -- noosph e re 06:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One song does not dissimilarity make. Show me a song on BT7 or MFAST that is similar to Womb. There is no real tangible biographical information on Rudy Ratzinger on the internet, other than his birthdate and general information that is already in the article. What you are alluding to as some kind of dramatic event that affected his music probably has not happened, and even if it did it would be impossible to source. Therefore your comment is not helpful to the article. Sorry. Schicksal 06:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many other songs of post-ED W that are also glaringly different, but, again, I am really not interested in arguing this. Getting back to the issue at hand, you might not be aware of any information that could answer my question but someone else might.  Maybe Rudy himself might post something on his website about it, and we could use it as a primary source.  Or there might be an interview with him that explains it somewhere that someone else might know about.  I'm not giving up hope.  -- noosph e re 06:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation
It's no big deal, but the link I deleted as "quasi-duplicate" IS easily accessible via the link I kept: For more on Heritage, see Right Web Archive: Group Watch: Heritage Foundation.. (.html versus .php, oddly, but otherwise the same) John Broughton 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is accessible through it. But it's not obvious to the people reading the Wikipedia article that there are more HF articles on the RightWeb website, if they only click-through.  They'd have to read the first RightWeb article and then look through it for other links, or find it some other way.


 * I am of the opinion that the Wikipedia article on the HF should directly link to all articles on the HF, no matter where they're located, or how else those articles may be found. -- noosph e re 17:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)