User talk:Visualerror

Gnosticism
Thanks again for the rewrite of the Gnosticism article. I will delete the subpage as I have administrative rights. Nixdorf 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds cool - really glad you liked the rewrite! Visual Error 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Helen
You found it a good idea to delete my remark about the Greek/Celt matrilineal linkage. I grant that Markale is not a very good source, but he beats other celtologists in that you don't need to be an academic to be able to get his books, or to understand what he writes. On the other hand, I found the parallel striking enough that I felt it needed to be mentioned (even if I had to mention that my source was not top, as I have none better at the present time). Do you have a suggestion for a better place or way to mention this? --Svartalf 16:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain that it need be mentioned at all - the primary focus of the article is on Helen, the mythical figure. As such, I don't think the best way to conclude this article is with a statement  making a vague contrast between ancient Greek culture and Celtic culture, particularly one that is so founded on conditionals: "if this version has any truth to it, it would mirror similar theories about Celtic society, particularly those advanced By French Celtologist (and suspected crackpot) Jean Markale."  This seems all too much like an extended excuse to mention Markale, rather than a factual, relevant remark about Helen or Greek culture; the witticism doesn't really help it.  Indeed, why mention a source if only to debunk it, as this sentence does?


 * If the theory concerning matrilineal heritage in ancient Greek culture is paralleled by theories concerning other cultures then that might bear mentioning, but if it does I don't see why it bears mentioning in this article, when a more relevant space might be found for it. Nor do I see why it should be illustrated with reference to a source as dubious as Markale. If the theory has more scholarly weight behind it, an alternative source should be found.  Perhaps a solution would be to mention Greek culture in an article referring to matrilineal heritage, and from there reference Helen as a cultural citation, and offer a scholarly citation (I personally wouldn't recommend Markale). Visual Error 17:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I grant, the Helen article may not be the best place, which is why I mentioned a better place in my initial query, there may be articles where this would more properly have its place... I originally put the statement where you found it because the parallel raising fact was there.


 * Actually, I was not trying to shoehorn Markale in: The sentence about matrilineal transmission struck me as so close to his theses that I had to mention it, I then created the article so as not to leave a blank link. As for my self debunking ways, it comes from the fact that I keep a critical eye, and did not want to look too affirmative when my source was not of Brékilien, Chadwick or Guyonvarc'h caliber. This is, after all, a parallel between theories, with nothing firmly established. And I'd be glad to quote other sources, if I knew of any... Markale has published on subjects that few others have dealt with, not just tabloid trash, so his stuff can be hard to debunk for lack of contradictory authoritative versions. Critical study is my forte, but with him I often have to play by ear. --Svartalf 17:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly satisfied that you weren't trying to shoehorn in Markale - the problem is that was the feeling given off by the citation in the Helen article. As to the parallel theories, I still think the Helen article isn't the best place to mention this - I had a look for a Greek culture article but didn't find one, which is why I suggested the matrilineal heritage page above - there's already a section in there about Judaic matrilineality, so perhaps a section on Greek matrilineality wouldn't be out of place, especially if the entry induced people to add more content.  If you either create a new subsection there or open discussion in the talk page, that'd probably be the best thing to do.  Visual Error 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've followed your counsel and added a section to the matrilineal heritage articler. please take a look and see if it's any good. --Svartalf 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems fine man! Had a quick look and that fits in pretty well - I'll check it out more closely soon Visual Error 14:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems
About this, er crank you've been having trouble getting off you back, sorry that s/he's making a fool of him/herself writing your professors and all. I don't know the details but that doesn't really matter. Professors in universities are most tolerant people who also often know that the world is full of weirdos, and often have a laught at their expense so I wouldn't worry about it. There is no Wikipedia policy I know of in these matters, but well, there are academic ways of handling it, which is to ignore it completely. Ignoring is the only option, since, as I was once taught (famous quote) "do not discuss with idiots, since in doing so you lower yourself to their level and they beat you by experience" (or something like it). Your professors will know this rule and ignore the crank. Else, tell them I think they ought to know this piece of advice and give it to them with regards from Jörgen, Sweden.

Second, if you want more anonymity, I can delete your userpage to get rid of the history containing links back to your person. Tell me if you want this, though you might loose this talk page too in the process. Nixdorf 20:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks man - I didn't expect to find a Wikipedia policy concerning this, but no worries really. I find the whole thing more amusing than anything - seems he's reported me as part of a revert war re:Plotinus, so I'm just hanging back, seeing what comes of it.  I'm perfectly happy to abide by whatever decision's reached, I'm just annoyed, as you say, that I allowed myself to stoop to the same level.


 * As to deleting my user page - I shouldn't worry about it, though thanks for the offer! I figure if anyone wants to try hard enough they'll find out about me anyway (this guy must have found my name, searched the web, found my university, my course, department and lecturers, and then emailed them all - how does anonymity compete with such dedication?)  Eventually I figure I'll re-instate my biography eventually - can't operate on the belief that everyone's a crank...


 * Anyway, thanks again for your time, and the advice! Visual Error 11:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Plotinus
I laid some ground rules for protect removal at the article. Any comments, criticisms would be welcome. I think it's quite fair. As an administrator, I rather enjoy finding creative solutions to such problems. --DanielCD 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Taking a pulse. Been quiet at Plotinus. Article is unblocked. --DanielCD 01:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I'd actually rather it stay quiet for the time being. I really just wanted to do a vigorous copyedit, and didn't want make any major additions or anything. But I ended up with another admin's baby in my lap, so now I'm just trying to do the minimalist thing: just trying to avoid having any edit wars resume. Feel free to return whenever you feel ready. --DanielCD 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much - I'll do that. Sorry you got lumbered with all this... Visual Error 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

simple links
Please don't type systematic errors (as you did in bias); instead use systematic errors. Similarly if you type evolutionary, Austrian, logical, dogs, hyphenated, rabbinical, etc., then the whole word, not just the part in brackets, appears as a clickable link, and links to the article whose name is in the brackets. Michael Hardy 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotcha! I'll do that in the future Visual Error 11:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User page
Hi VE, another editor has just brought to my attention the issue you had in February where e-mails were sent to people in your private life. I've taken the liberty of deleting from the edit history of your user page all but the last edit you made, so that no further details are available to anyone but admins. Not that this helps with that incident, but it may prevent future ones. If you would rather I hadn't done that, I'll restore the edits immediately, of course. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You God Delusion "Criticism" section has been deleted
Hi Visualerror. You drafted the first "Criticism" section of The God Delusion and it has since been added to by a number of editors. However [user:Sparkhead] who has a long track record of trying to supress criticism of Dawkins has now deleted the whole thing (!). I shall try to restore it but I'd really appreciate your help and comments. NBeale 14:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy rider?
Don't recall Grant mentioning him (but it's been awhile...). #5 is legit, tho. I've come across a ref in a serious work. I think Grant just borrowed it. Thanks for the reply anyhow. Good to know somebody's paying attention. :) BTW, did you understand Grant's DP? ;D  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Night on Bald Mountain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conductor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)