User talk:Parzivalamfortas

License tagging for File:Exitweblogo.GIF
Thanks for uploading File:Exitweblogo.GIF. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a rather complex process demanding time ... the imagine was created for the organisation by a graphic artist commissioned to dsign it. The copyright is with the organisation. That might sound a little vague under U.S. copyright but is clear enough under U.K. copyright. Hope that helps. Parzivalamfortas 21:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Exit (Right-to Die Organization), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Tazerdadog (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your changes at Euthanasia
Hi. You made three changes to the lead at Euthanasia. I removed one, since it puts the lead at odds with the content it is meant to summarize, but the other two also seem borderline out of place in the lead. Can you give some more thought as to whether they might fit better into the body of the article? Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify? I added some references that allow the reader to explore different definitions, which seems important, though it would be inappropriate to quote the whole of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry in the article. The change that I can see you rolled back was my addition of the word "often." I don't feel terribly strongly about it, but there is a disjunct here: the Wiki page defines types of euthanasia according to classical bioethics. Perhaps "usually" would be better? The small problem is that, in the countries where euthanasia (as opposed to assisted suicide) is practiced, this classification is not only not used but considered misleading (I am talking principally of the Netherlands, and added a reference to their law in English.) So we have to ask, is it a responsible Wiki entry when the legally defined practice and the theoretical definitions, however longstanding and technically interesting, are at odds with each other? In defence of the position before I made that small change, I would say that the types of euthanasia as described are the common parlance iin most countries where euthanasia is not allowed. So I don't have any strong objection to your revision. Maybe a footnote to the effect that it is a common categorization, rather than one used in law where euthanasia is practiced? (Best to check the wording for Belgium and Luxembourg statutes before including those of course.) Kind regards.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the sentence starting, "The Dutch law however, ..." Happy to move that down if you feel it is too much!Parzivalamfortas (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the whole of my addition there (Dutch definition) to be included in a footnote - at least it is maybe a bit more authoritative than simply quoting the BBC quoting what they understand the Dutch law to be.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I wasn't more specific. It was both the addition of a citation in the lead to support a non-controversial statement and the additional text about the Dutch law. Thanks for considering my input. Just to be clear, though, it really is just an observation from a fellow editor and you are welcome to take it or leave it. I'm glad you found my comment useful.
 * My concern with "often" was twofold; we should always avoid wp:weasel words and the content which that sentence summarizes does not say "often" in any way. Weasel words soften a phrase to make it more acceptable, but at the same time result in an unsupported claim. By saying "often" here we suggest that some use different classification systems, without saying who uses those other systems or what that other systems might be. If the text in the body expressed that there were several systems of classification of which this was slightly more popular, then "often" would be justified. The text which is summarized simply says this is the classification system and the lead should match that.
 * You allude to a difference between some legal classification and the philosophical one. I think we should only discuss the scientific classification in Wikipedia unless whichever article we are discussing is about how euthanasia is dealt with under the various legal systems. If, as sometimes in the case, there are multiple scientific systems in common use by different scholars, then we should discuss those in the body of the article and summarize the fact in the lead. Anyway, that's my opinion. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't particularly disagree with you and even though I'm not entirely happy with your use of 'non-controversial' (the existence of other classifications suggests they are not) or 'scientific' (both philosophy and the law are in the humanities: one is not more scientific than the other) I only have a limited amount of time that I can contribute to the page. So if you feel you can improve on it please do so, that's ok with me, though I ask you to bear my comments in mind. To underline my point, I think the popular definitions of euthanasia, since they have been dispensed with by Netherlands in favour of a classification that they find more patient-centred, are unfairly biased. The Netherlands, as the founding country of euthanasia in practice, should I feel at least be given a little more cognizance. They are accepted there by the medical and legal professions and that is no small thing. So what 'euthanasia' is the Wiki page talking about? A theoretical distinction from teh Nazi use of the term?? Overall I would personally prefer the page overhauled to explain the szemantic history and how the terms are still used but more in theory (especially by countries prohibiting euthanasia) and in the vernacular than in practice. The term euthanasia doesn't apear in British Law either. In other words, it is largely a theoretical one applied ad hoc to theoretical situations, or situations that are properly known (medically and legally) under other names. This might not please supporters or even a few opponents, as the terms have considerable rhetorical appeal in the newsprint: but Wiki should not be about newsprint terminology. These blunt classifications strike me personally as a little outdated, although they still serve a purpose in elementary bioethics discussions. The Dutch ones seem a bit more accurate. I have maybe overstated the case a little here, but someone sometime will maybe have a go at a more thorough examination. I notice on the talk page, there are some suggestions for a more refined philosophical analysis.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Parzivalamfortas (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your point about weasel words is well taken, thank you.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you. Occasionally I have been known to click the enter button too quickly!Parzivalamfortas 16:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=682772587 your edit] to Christian Jacq may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * * A fan site with booklists and descriptions

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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Exit (scotland).jpg.gif


The file File:Exit (scotland).jpg.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)