User talk:Taxico

'''Sorry, I no longer edit actively. If there's something that needs my immediate attention feel free to e-mail me and I should repond within 12 hours. Thank you. ==  Taxico ''' 07:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you post something here, I will most likely reply here.

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank you :)


 * YAW :) Now try the same, without leading spaces and with four tildes ( ~ ). Also you may want to try Show preview button before saving. Now you're on your own. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) Taxico 10:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Far right
Hi, The cite is to a chapter in an edited book. The chapter discusses the parties the author identifies as various forms of extreme right parties. The page numbers for the chapter are included in the cite. Hope this helps explain matters.--Cberlet 21:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what seems to be the problem
To be honest. Amoruso 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If even User:Zero0000 agrees that Ada Amichal is a good source then I think the debate is over.... Amoruso 22:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Opus Dei
Thanks for your comment. I too admit it's very difficult to follow the rewrite-- I had originally rewritten it as a way to stimulate discussion, so I realize it would have been much better if I could had done the edits in a way that was easier to follow. I was wondering if you could clarify your comments-- by and large, do you think the old version should be put back up? or should we stick with the new version? If you would, could you watch the discussion for the next few days? I think rewrite will be quite controversial with the members of Opus Dei who are on the page, and so we could use all the outside eyes we could get, to be sure that neither they (nor I) succeed in violating NPOV. --Alecmconroy 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, my comment there is not a vote of support for your version. It's also definitely not a vote of support for any other version so far. It is just a comment, not a vote. I'll try to take a closer look at the changes you've made and then post a better review. I'll also watch the article more closely. It looks like the person who was revert-warring has already been blocked. Taxico 11:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, one of the single purpose accounts has already been blocked, but there are several so I expect this be a lot of discussion. And yeah, I know it's almost impossible to see, at a quick glance, what changed, because I did do a total rewrit using the information on the old page, rather than just a line-by-line change of things. I did try to make up this comparison between versions for you and other editors to try to make it easier to see what the differences are, but I'm worried that the RFC just won't get any commenters, because it is so involved.  Any opinions or help you have most welcome --Alecmconroy 11:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One question: What was so wrong with the old version of the article that it had to be rewritten? Also, did you actually add anything, or did you just rewrite the old article? Taxico 12:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Taxico-- thanks so much for helping out looking over these issues. I'm orry I didn't write back earlier, got distracted and forgot to watch/check back this page.


 * In answer your question, there were a couple different simultaneous problems with the older article. One problems was systemic problems of tone and verifiability.  The whole article wasn't written in encyclopedia tone, and most of the sentences were worded in ways that made them unverifiable.  By and large, the truths that were the 'kernel' of what the old article was trying to get at-- those were basically fine, but the way they were worded and the language used made them unverifiable.


 * To give one concrete example out of several hundred, the old article discussed the importants of "Work" in Opus Dei by saying:
 * Since the Bible stated that man was created "to work" (Gen 2:15) and that Jesus "did all things well" (Mk 7:37), Escrivá encouraged Christians to work excellently out of love. By doing so, their work is a service to society and a fitting offering to God. "'Great' holiness consists in carrying out the 'little duties' of each moment", says Escrivá.


 * The thought which is at the kernel of this paragraph is fine: "Work is a big thing in Opus Dei". It was just a matter of the tone and the wording-- how can I verify "By doing so, their work is a service to society and a fitting offering to God.", for example.  So I rewrote it thusly:


 * Similarly, Opus Dei stresses the importance of work. Opus Dei places a great value on industriousness, diligence, and hard work.  Where some religious orders might encourage their members to withdraw from the material world, Opus Dei's members take an active role in careers or charitable works.  Opus Dei teaches that work is "a path to holiness", and its founder famously advised members to "Sanctify your work. Sanctify yourself in your work. Sanctify others through your work." 


 * So, that was one problem. The other problem was that the old article was poorly organized--  the organization structure was almost impossible to comprehend.  For example, it seemed logical to me to have one short section where the controversy surrounding Opus Dei was mention-- but in the old article, the controversy was discussed not in one place, but it 10 different sections.  Similarly, my rewrite has one basic theology section where all the discussion of Opus Dei theology can go, but the theological views of Opus Dei were mentioned in 7 different sections.  The other topics were similarly scattered across all sections.


 * The old article was basically just a random hodgepodge. It was basically impossible to find what you were looking for, and it was similarly impossible to know where you should put something.  So, first I made a reorganized version, where I basically kept the original sentences and lumped everything together by subject.  But when I showed it to the OD members, they didn't like it.  Now, what I should have done was a RFC right then, but at the time, I thought they just didn't get where I was going, so I went ahead and started improving the tone problems too, thinking they'd like the finished product.  They didn't, and I kept working on my version, trying to convince them, until eventually I came to the conclusion they were unconvincable, and I should just show my version to outside editors who haven't been exclusively involved in editing Opus Dei related pages.


 * As for whether I added anything new-- I honestly don't think so.  I summarized a lot, I deleted or reworded the unverifiable sentences, but I don't think I introducted anything new.  Certainly nothing major.  Mostly, my source for the new article was just the older article-- it's not that it really says anything new or different.  It's not "what" it says that's so different, it's just "how" it says it-- the tone, the verifiability, the citations, and the organization.
 * Anyway, thanks for looking into things-- I look forward to hearing what you think of the article. Based on the overwhelmingly positive reactions the RFC has gotten, I'm now confident that if the new version become stable, the we don't have too far to go to get to FAC, so-- anything you can suggest to get us that way would be great.
 * --Alecmconroy 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like your edit was well-intentioned. It has also improved the article substantially (in terms of providing citations and avoiding original research). So I support the new version. It looks like your edit was well-intentioned. It has also improved the article substantially (in terms of providing citations and avoiding original research). So I support the new version. Taxico 01:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * :) thank you very much Taxico for all your help-- I'm so glad you like it. I worked really hard on it, but there was a time there, when six different OD members all told me I was crazy and a POV-pusher, where I truly began to worry I had just gone out of my mind or something in thinking my rewrite would be an improvement.  Today has a been a reassuring day for me, because after 6 months or so of thinking I was just askew in my understand of Wikipedia policies, I've been told my editorial compass is accurate.


 * Would it be too anal of me to ask you to just quickly reiterate that support at the RFC itself? Even though I got 10 different outside editors approving the article, the OD members have been quite dedicated this issue and I wouldn't be surprised if there reverting even still, so, it would be ideal if I could just have all the support in one place, so an admin could quickly and easily size up the situation if need be.
 * Thanks again for all your help.--Alecmconroy 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey if you have nothing to hide you should make your edits as transparent as possible (by spreading one big edit into several smaller edits). That way no one has anything to complain about. Keep in touch. Taxico 03:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Next time, I most certainly will. :) thanks for your help, Tax-- I'm deeply in your debt. --Alecmconroy 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: John Chrysostom
I responded on my talk page and copied the discussion to the article's talk page. Beit Or 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people
Excuse me but how can people ensure that those going into the category aren't disputed? There's no way for editors to realistically keep track of who's going into a category without specifically editing on the related article. (→ Netscott ) 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's just the job of Wikipedia editors? That's like asking, "How can you ensure vandalism never takes place?" The answer is that Wikipedia editors have the responsibility to ensure the factual accuracy and neutrality of articles and their corresponding categories. Taxico 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

September 11 2001 attacks
Taxico, thanks for the suggestion of archiving at this article's talk page. It was overdue. I'm sorry you got a snippy response from one of the editors. Things have been a bit heated there and that editor probably didn't mean to be so shor with you. Someone just archived a good portion of the page and it's a just a bit more manageable now. At the risk of self-promotion I'd point you to two sections on the talk page I drafted to begin to fix the NPOV problems. I'd welcomd you to ake a look.


 * Reworking the article so that if follows Wikipedia policies
 * EXAMPLES OF NPOV problems

Please return and contribute to the discussion. --Cplot 07:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know, I went to comment after seeing the RFC, but I still can't figure out what's going on because all the discussions seem unorganized. I'll try to check back in the future. Taxico 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
Well if the old version also included original research, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is okay to replace it with different OR. I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with your definition, but without a reference it would not be appropriate to include it in the article. You seem to be a new editor so I can relate to you. When I arrived at wikipedia, most of my first edits also included OR to various degrees. I was angry when I was reverted because I knew that the additions were well-written and had valid points, but I soon came to understand why the WP:OR policy is so important.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism
Deletion of this article was suggested in the past - see its talk page - because it duplicates nationalism. Do you support deletion?Paul111 12:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Judiasm
Hi Taxico -- as the result of a multi-article fire-fight with User:Beit Or, I ended up actually going to the Anti-Judaism article. Maybe my gloss is incorrect, but all its really saying AFAICT, it that it's another word for anti-Semitism, which I believe is fairly absurd. But as Beit Or's got me on tilt already, I've decided to take a few deep breaths and see what you thought about this. -- Kendrick7talk 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I had almost the same concerns as you're having, so I searched about 30 different encyclopedias online (including the Jewish Encyclopedia), but I couldn't find a single article on anti-Judaism. So the assumption that anti-Judaism is the same exact thing as relgious antisemtism is not really backed up by any sources. But the assumption that the two terms are not related is also not backed up by any sources. As I've said before, I think the reality lies somewhere in between: antisemtism and anti-Judaism are two different things, but one can easily lead to another (and many times the two beliefs are held simultaneously).


 * So what is one to do? Well I've been searching my libary's website, and I've found some books that deal with anti-Judaism in particular. I'm going to take a look at those books, and I'll give you an update in about a week. But you shouldn't really stress yourself over this issue. Let's say that Beit Or is wrong. What real difference does this actually make on the anti-Judaism article? Not a whole lot. Perhaps only the first few sentences; the rest of the article is most likely to remain the same. I've become to realize it's a lot more important to focus on actual content of articles. Otherwise we all have our ideological differences, and arguing over the differences is not going to take us very far. But if there's anything specific you and Beit Or are having problems over, I'd be more that glad to take a look. ==  Taxico  11:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I did make an attempt at ecumenism with Beit Or, even though ecumenical thinking is out, and defending the faith is in. But I don't know to what extent my heart is in it having long since lost my zeal for religious debate; been there, done that. It's like the old joke about the men who have been in prison so long, they simply tell the jokes they all heard by number. "73" one might say, and they all laugh. Until a new guy ends up in the cell block and the old convicts realize they've long since forgotten what joke "73" actually stood for, but were laughing all this time anyway. If he doesn't get the joke, I'm not sure if I care to start from scratch. Maybe Beit Or is right -- I think the logical outcome of his thinking is that Hitler and Jesus Bar Joseph belong on the same list somehow; but I still think this is dangerous -- not because it makes Jesus look bad but because it could make Hitler look good. I suspect Beit Or is too zealous to recognize this danger. Christianity at least implicitly rejects spreading the faith by force and accepts that all people have souls regardless of their religious affiliation; and with the absense of evidence that some of these Christian teachers called for violence against Jews or otherwise impuned their inherent humanity, I just don't think anti-Semite is a good categorization. -- Kendrick7talk 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I looked through some books at the library, and it looks like the definition of "anti-Judaism" varies considerably from person to person. I think the best solution would be to more the current anti-Judaism page to Religious antisemitism and make anti-Judaism a disambiguation page. A lot of the sources I looked at treat anti-Judaism as a synonym for antisemitism. Others restrict to anti-Jewish sentiments (against the religion). So I think it would be best to make it a disambiguation page. I will elaborate on this later. ==  Taxico  03:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I've replaced the definition here with the one I found in one of the books. I think it's a fair definition, and it clears up a lot of stuff. ==  Taxico  21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very fair; I had to read it a few times before liking it but your refs seem to have made a good appraisal of the situation. I don't know exactly why, but User:Slim Virgin seems to want to wholesale revert your changes. Probably my fault for approving them; I think she has decided I'm the devil. I reverted her once, but I'm about to go on wikibreak. I expect she'll calm down. -- Kendrick7talk 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

LARC dispute
yeah im a bit perplexed. i have asked two admins who seem fairly objective to give us an opinion (see here and here) and i hope either one or both can. im now unsure if we are dealing with vandalism or a POV dispute. but anyway, we will get to the bottom of it eventually. thanks for your involvement thusfar! Mujinga 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks for fixing it
Thanks for removing my sig from the RFC. Force of habit, and brain fart. Happy holidays! Zora 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Purushottam Nagesh Oak
Taxico, please look into the history of this article. I feel it's amazing. Several P.N. Oak supporters are puffing this history genius. Even I too find him surprizingly credible.

About Zora's message
Note - I find this canvassing as an effort to unveil truth. I am perfectly sure that PN Oak is a history genius.

3RR
As you're doing a fair bit of reverting, I want to make sure you've been told about the 3RR rule. This says we may not revert more than three times in 24 hours or we may be blocked from editing. Any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part (and it can be as little as one word), whether involving the same material or different material each time, counts as a revert. More details at WP:3RR. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR on John Chrysostom
I'm sure you are aware that you have just violated the 3RR on this talk page. I do not plan on reporting you over so small of an issue. I think you are simply misunderstanding how normal it is to repost other's comments and you are misinterpreting the implications of it. Nobody is trying to be a jerk by doing it, they just feel that your comment is relevant to the ongoing discussion on the talk page. You are also wrong that reposting is somehow against policy, I can assure you that it isn't, I can also tell you that you are not protected from a block for 3RR. Once again I personally am not going to report you but I still would strongly encourage you to revert yourself.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How's that last one a revert? ==  Taxico  09:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I came here to say the same thing. I posted the policy on your page today and asked you to review it. You may want to do that now. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay what do you want me to do? ==  Taxico  10:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back
I've been working on a redux of anti-Judaism to replace the current redirect in my user area here. Repeated explanations that the concepts are distinct are falling on deaf ears. -- Kendrick7talk 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't had much time to edit Wikipedia lately. Some of the users here are totally oblivious to any form of reasoning. This would have been okay if they had any sources backing up their statements, but that's not even possible given how flawed their basic historical understanding is. But I'm not here to win some kind of a battle, so I'm going to keep to one revert per day--or maybe even less than that. It's really not worth stressing over. ==  Taxico  09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism
Hi, just curious to get your take on re-merging Religious Antisemitism with Anti-Judaism, but under the title of Anti-Judaism. The issue is being discussed on Talk:Religious antisemitism currently. Thanks, Mackan79 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

John Chrysostom
I don't know if you're busy right now, but we may need your opinions at the John Chrysosyom page. --Grimhelm 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time it looked as if another dispute was brewing, but you are right in that it seems to have cooled down now. Thanks anyway.
 * PS: Do you think the tag should still be there?  --Grimhelm 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:National Geographic - King Tut face.jpg
Hello Taxico, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:National Geographic - King Tut face.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Taxico/drafts/Egypt. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Taxico/drafts/Egypt
User:Taxico/drafts/Egypt, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Taxico/drafts/Egypt and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Taxico/drafts/Egypt during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)